Toward World-Class Education: Kean University in Transition

TOWARD WORLD-CLASS EDUCATION: KEAN UNIVERSITY IN TRANSITION

Submitted by The Middle States Self Study Steering Committee February 17, 2011

Steering Committee

Dr. Linda Best, Professor of English, Co-chair Dr. Barbara Lee, Associate Professor of Special Education, Co-chair Mr. LaMont Rouse, Director of Accreditation and Assessment Dr. Kenneth B. Sanders, Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs, Co-chair Dr. Shiji Shen, Director of Institutional Research, Ex Officio

Dr. Frank Argote-Freyre, Assistant Professor of History Dr. Jennifer Chen, Assistant Professor of Early Childhood and Family Studies Dr. Paul Croft, Assistant Professor of Meteorology Ms. Charlotte Diakite, Associate Director, Office of Undergraduate Admissions Ms. Dawn Marie Dowd, Assistant Director, General Education Professor Rachel Evans, Assistant Professor of Theatre Dr. Edward Farnum, Assistant Professor, NJCSTM Ms. Susan Gannon, Acting Director, Office of Research and Sponsored Programs Dr. Venessa Garcia, Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice Dr. Kathleen Henderson, Adjunct Professor, Physical Education, Recreation, and Health Dr. Roxie A. James, Executive Director of the School of Natural Sciences Dr. Bryan Lees, Professor of Chemistry Dr. Patrick McManimon, Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice Ms. Maximina Rivera, Director of Residence Life Dr. Jack Sargent, Associate Professor of Communication Mr. Brian Treanor, Associate Director, Institutional Advancement

Executive Council of the Steering Committee

Dr. Linda Best Dr. Barbara Lee Mr. LaMont Rouse Dr. Kenneth B. Sanders Dr. Shiji Shen

Support Staff

Mrs. Donna Hunter, Secretarial Assistant III Steno Ms. Armanda Cerqueira, Academic Specialist

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures ...... iv

List of Abbreviations ...... vii

Executive Summary ...... x

Chapter 1 Introduction to the Self Study . . . . . 1

Chapter 2 Standard 1: Mission and Goals . . . . . 8 Standard 7: Institutional Assessment . . . . 12

Chapter 3 Standard 2: Planning, Resource Allocation, & Institutional Renewal 15 Standard 3: Institutional Resources . . . . 22

Chapter 4 Standard 4: Leadership and Governance . . . . 29 Standard 5: Administration . . . . . 34 Standard 6: Integrity ...... 36

Chapter 5 Standard 8: Student Admissions and Retention . . . 40 Standard 9: Student Support Services . . . . 45

Chapter 6 Standard 10: Faculty ...... 50

Chapter 7 Standard 11: Educational Offerings . . . . 71 Standard 12: General Education . . . . . 76

Chapter 8 Standard 13: Additional Educational Offerings . . . 84

Chapter 9 Standard 14: Assessment of Student Learning . . . 97

Chapter 10 Conclusion ...... 108

Bibliography ...... 110

List of Appendices ...... 112

List of Documents ...... 113

iii

LIST OF FIGURES

Chapter One Figure 1.1 Five-Year Report on Student Enrollment Headcount by Ethnicity/Gender Figure 1.2 New Jersey Universities‘ Tuition and Fees

Chapter Two No Figures

Chapter Three Figure 3.1 Enrollment Trends (Fall 2005- Fall 2009) Figure 3.2 Tuition and Fees Figure 3.3 Full-Time Employee by Category Figure 3.4 Expenditures (FY 2010) Figure 3.5 Comparison of Academic Affairs Expenditures to Total Budget Figure 3.6 Full-time Employee Diversity by Race and Ethnicity Figure 3.7 Full-time Employee by Age Figure 3.8 Total Revenue Figure 3.9 Assets Table Figure 3.10 Debts Table Figure 3.11 Debt Comparison Across State Universities Figure 3.12 Payments Due on Long term Debt

Chapter Four Figure 4.1 Unfair Labor Practice Filings Figure 4.2 College Deans‘ Scholarly Activity FY 2005-2009 Figure 4.3 Diversity of Executive Staff FY 2010 Figure 4.4 Student Racial Composition AY 2009-2010 Figure 4.5 Transitions in Executive Offices Figure 4.6 Applications Processed by IRB

Chapter Five Figure 5.1 Undergraduate Student Enrollment Headcount by Attendance Status Figure 5.2 New Transfer Student Enrollment by Class Level Figure 5.3 Graduate Student Enrollment Headcount by Attendance Status Figure 5.4 Student Retention and Graduation

Chapter Six Figure 6.1 Faculty Headcount Fall 2005-2009 Figure 6.2 Full-time Faculty by College FA 05-09 Figure 6.3 Course Sections Taught by Full-time/Adjunct Faculty Figure 6.4 Full-time and Adjunct-Faculty by College Figure 6.5 Minority Faculty Headcount Figure 6.6 Full-time Faculty Diversity Figure 6.7 Diversity of Adjunct Faculty Figure 6.8 Sabbatical Leaves, 2007-2011 Figure 6.9 Advisees per Faculty by Rank Figure 6.10 Advisees per Faculty by College Figure 6.11 Full- time Faculty Overload Credits and Annual Expense

Figure 6.12 Overload Participation and Full- time Equivalent Figure 6.13 Released Time by Responsibilities Figure 6.14 Tenure Status of Full-time Faculty Figure 6.15 Full-time Faculty Education; Highest Degree Attained Figure 6.16 Adjunct Faculty Education; Highest Degree Attained Figure 6.17 Faculty Self Assessed Working Hours per Week Figure 6.18 Research and Creative Work by Category/ Faculty, 2008-2009 Figure 6.19 Scholarly Activity by College/ Faculty, 2008-2009 Figure 6.20 Fraction of Faculty by College Included in Scholarly Activity Data Figure 6.21 Faculty Self-Assessed Average. Weekly Hours by Activity by College Figure 6.22 Faculty Self-Assessed Avg. Weekly Hours by Activity by Rank Figure 6.23 Promotion to Professor AY 2006-2007 to AY 2010-2011 Figure 6.24 Promotion to Associate Professor AY 06-07 to AY 10-11 Figure 6.25 Faculty Headcount by Rank 2005-2009 Figure 6.26 Faculty Involvement in Development of Curricula 2005-2009 Figure 6.27 Internal Research Funding 2005-2010 Figure 6.28 Number of Internal Research Awards 2005-2010 Figure 6.29 Number of Faculty with Release Time from Internal Research Awards 2005-2010 Figure 6.30 Technologies Used by Faculty Figure 6.31 Computer Labs by Department 1 Figure 6.32 OCIS Service Incidents per Year Figure 6.33 OCIS Work Order Trends by Type

Chapter Seven Figure 7.1 Completion Passing Rates: Foundations Courses, Spring 2005- Fall 2009 Figure 7.2 Completion Passing Rates: Distribution Courses, Sp 05- Fa 09

Chapter Eight Figure 8.1 Number of First-Time Freshmen Enrolled in Remediation (Basic Skills) Courses. Figure 8.2 Total Number of First-Time Freshmen Requiring Remediation in at Least One Subject Figure 8.3 Pass/Fail Rates in Basic Skills Courses, 2008-2009 Figure 8.4 Degrees Offered at the Kean Ocean Campus Figure 8.5 Kean Ocean Enrollments, 2006-2010 Figure 8.6 Kean Ocean Full-time Faculty Sections Figure 8.7 Kean University China Initiatives Figure 8.8 Collateral Enrollments Figure 8.9 Kean University Certification Programs Figure 8.10 Online Course Sections Figure 8.11 Faculty Technology Survey

Chapter Nine Figure 9.1 Implementation of Systematic Program Review- Department Chairs Responses Figure 9.2 Admissions Requirements Figure 9.3 Gather Faculty to Review Student Learning Based on Expected Program Outcomes Figure 9.4 Types of Assessment of Student Learning Figure 9.5 Types of Exit Assessment of Student Learning Figure 9.6 Utilizes Graduation Rates of Students with Academic Program

Figure 9.7 Types of Post- Graduation Data Collected by College Figure 9.8 Changes Made Due to Assessment and Standards

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS

ADCNJ Arts Directors Club of New Jersey AIM Academic Instructional Mentor AS Associates of Science ATEAM Adjuncts Teaching English and Math AY Academic Year BA Bachelors of Arts BFA Bachelors of Fine Arts BS Bachelors of Science BSN Bachelors of Science in Nursing CAAP College Assessment of Academic Proficiency CAS Center for Academic Success CBPA College of Business and Public Administration CEU Continued Education Units CHSS College of Humanities and Social Sciences CIS Center for International Studies CLS Center for Leadership Service CNAHS College of Natural, Applied, and Health Sciences CNJSC Council of New Jersey State College COE College of Education CPD Center for Professional Development CPI Continuous Program Improvement CSI: PST Case Study Instruction: Pre- Professional Science Teachers CSRDE Consortium for Student Retention Data Exchange CVPA College of Visual and Performing Arts CWA Communication Workers of America Ed.D Doctorate in Education EEO Exceptional Education Opportunity EFMD European Foundation for Management Development EMBA Executive Management in Business Administration EMR Electronic Feasibility Records EOF Educational Opportunity Fund EPIC Entry Program Into College ESL English as a Second Language FDN Faculty Development Network FFRA Foundation Faculty Research Award FOE Foundations of Excellence FT Full-time FTE Full Time Equivalent FTFT First Time Full Time GE General Education

vii

GEAR UP Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs GELAP General Education and Learning Assistance Program GEMS General Education Mentor Student GMBA Global Management Masters in Business Administration HR Human Resources HS Health Services IACUC Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee IPEDS Integrated Post-Secondary Data System IRB Institutional Review Board IR Institutional Research KFT Kean Federation for Teachers KORRS Kean Online Record of Research and Scholarship KUAFF Kean University Adjunct Faculty Federation LOA Letters of Agreement MA Masters of Arts MBA Masters of Business Administration MS Masters of Science MSCHE Middle States Committee of Higher Education MSN Masters of Science in Nursing NASM National Association of Schools of Music NCATE National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education NJAS New Jersey Academy of Science NJASCU New Jersey Association of State Colleges and Universities NJCHE New Jersey Commission of Higher Education NJCSTM New Jersey Center for Science, Technology, and Mathematics NJIT New Jersey Institute of Technology NLNAC National League of Nursing Accrediting Commission NSSE National Survey of Student Engagement NWGC Nathan Weiss Graduate College OCC Ocean County College OCIS Office of Computer and Information Services OCPE Office of Continued Professional Education ORL Office of Residence Life ORSP Office of Research and Sponsored Programs PBA Police Benevolent Association PERH Physical Education, Recreation, and Health PHS Public Health Service POGIL Process-Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning PRI Presidential Research Initiative PSC Presidential Scholars Challenge PSI Progressive Science Initiative Psy.D Doctorate in Psychology PT Part-time

viii

QFI Quality First Initiatives RA Resident Assistance RTR Release Time for Research RVCC Raritan Valley Community College SAMS Student Assessment and Management Systems SBDC Small Business Development Center SC Steering Committee for the 2011 Middle States Self-Study Report SGS School of General Studies SIR II Student Instructional Review II SOX Sarbanes Oxley SPA Specialized Professional Association SpF Student Partnering with Faculty STEM Science Technology and Mathematics Education T2K Transition to Kean TFRI Tenured Faculty Research Initiative TTFN Tenure Track Faculty Network TWS Teacher Work Sample UCC University Curriculum Committee UFRI Untenured Faculty Research Initiative ULP Unfair Labor Practice UPC University Planning Council VPAA Vice President of Academic Affairs

Executive Summary

Context

Kean University‘s transformation into a major comprehensive public university continues today, surpassing expectations outlined in both its 2001 Self Study and 2006 Periodic Review Report. The University has added a number of degree programs to its offerings, including two at the doctoral level. In fall 2010, 15,939 students were enrolled at Kean, which represents a 23% increase since fall 2005. The student population is richly diverse, reflecting the make-up of the region and positioning Kean as a model for education in the future in view of expected demographic trends in the country. Kean University aims for continuous improvement, and efforts along this line over the past decade have been two-pronged: invest in the development of cutting-edge academic and research facilities, services, and amenities; and at the same time dedicate extensive resources to reinvigorate, enhance, and make relevant the academic offerings available to the student body.

A comprehensive ongoing capital campaign has resulted in the creation of the Center for Academic Success (CAS), a facility solely devoted to the academic success of students; two new residence halls; a comprehensive student services and athletic center; a state-of-the-art research center for science, technology and mathematics; a high-tech and wireless library facility that also houses the region‘s only Human Rights Institute on a public college campus; a comprehensive graduate college supporting nationally-recognized programs in speech and occupational therapy; a world-class music hall; and arguably the finest Division III athletics facilities in the region.

Since 2006, major progress has also occurred in the Division of Academic Affairs. The first of these concentrated on advisement, specifically the elimination of a centralized advisement function and the reassignment of all advisement responsibilities to resident faculty, the implementation of which continues today. This initiative was designed to move students more efficiently through degree programs by connecting them directly with program faculty who are better positioned to identify the selection and sequencing of course work. A second critical change occurred in spring 2008 with the revamping of the course schedule to improve space utilization. The reconfigured scheduling template (Appendix E) integrates two- and three-day programming as well as weekend courses. Through summer 2009, action within the division focused on academic programs, identifying underperforming majors and eliminating them, as well as expanding and investing in the development of relevant majors. Specifically, the undergraduate social work and philosophy programs were eliminated, a new program in sustainability was created, and the graduate social work program was enhanced. Today, another reorganization initiative is in progress—the re-structuring of Academic Affairs (Appendix F: Academic Affairs Reorganization Document), which involves the creation of a number of schools within the academic colleges and the introduction of a management position, Executive Director, in place of department chairs to administer academic units. Approved changes include the reorganization of General Education (GE) into the School of General Studies.

Since obtaining university status in 1997, Kean‘s journey to realize the implications of this title has taken unexpected turns, influenced by opportunity or constraint. The University has pursued prospects to serve new demographics both in the state and abroad, weathered uncertain fiscal conditions, and revised curricula to comply with 2008 legislation on the transfer of General Education credits for students with an AA or AS from local community or county colleges. The 95-member self-study team worked within this dynamic context, guided by MSCHE standards/protocols and institutional reports, to provide a candid self- assessment to better realize Kean‘s mission of excellence and opportunity. Through the process, the team identified areas of concern and worked with constituencies on campus, including the University President,

x to facilitate institutional renewal. Many of the recommendations for improvement listed in Appendix A are in various stages of development, from implementation to completion. This executive summary references those improvement plans; a complete table of all actions completed or in progress can be found in Appendix I; and detailed review of each occurs in appropriate sections of the report.

Chapter One: Introduction and Overview of the Institution This Self Study opens with a succinct history of the University, a summary of changes of the last five years, student demographics, summary points about the self study design, and an orientation to findings to prepare readers for the discussion in Chapters 2 through 10. It also highlights strengths, challenges, and recommendations that are later enumerated in detail, by standard, in Appendix A.

Chapter Two: Standards 1 and 7, Mission, Goals, and Institutional Assessment The University‘s mission (Appendix B) is central to this self study. This historic purpose celebrates diversity; promotes access and opportunity for first generation students; affirms faculty work; and promises a quality education. Though broadly compatible with current practices, the mission statement has not been aligned with specific outcomes measures. A well-coordinated, systematic institutional assessment process had not been implemented prior to this self study, and as such, actions at the University can appear responsive to circumstances rather than developed through established and well-coordinated cycles. Presently, there is progress in the area of university-wide assessment. A Director of Accreditation and Assessment was hired in February 2010—information in Chapters 2, 7, and 9 highlights assessment plans and accomplishments to date.

Chapter Three: Standards 2 and 3, Planning, Resource Allocation, and Institutional Renewal/Institutional Resources An underlying vision for planning at the University exists. Particularly strong is the foresight to scan external trends and anticipate future directions as a reference for planning. Planning appears, however, to occur primarily at the executive level, with limited follow up and communication to other levels. At times, institutional directions and initiatives do not align with the strategic plan. The strengths and weaknesses cited in this chapter focus on core elements. Strong points include the outcome of the recent capital campaign, which exceeded the target goal of $30 million, and the transformation of the university library through enhancements to collections, technology, facilities, and space allocation. Areas of concern include technology/technology services and the linkage between planning and budget allocations. Finally, the Steering Committee identified the need to better cultivate alumni as an institutional resource.

Chapter Four: Standards 4, 5, and 6, Leadership and Governance, Administration, and Integrity Campus leaders are passionate about Kean University. This positive feeling is pervasive across campus though it has not always been translated consistently into university initiatives for change. Several conditions explain this finding: the limited dissemination of information about and call for participation in discussions about change at the University; general issues concerning inconsistencies in communication; and the high level of transition in key academic offices, specifically the Office of the VPAA and the Deans‘ offices. The absence of clearly-delineated roles and responsibilities for all governing bodies, with the exception of the Board of Trustees, whose role is outlined clearly in 1994 legislation on the re-structuring of higher education in New Jersey, is a related element. A re-definition of the roles of different governing arenas and sustainable policies, procedures, and reports appear essential to support cohesion across the University. With regard to Standard 6, Integrity, the effective graduation audit process and the protocols of the institutional research review board constitute strong points. Areas needing attention focus on the inconsistencies in the academic experiences of native and transfer students and Kean‘s website. As a result of the self-study process, a new University website was launched in early February 2011, offering more up- to-date information as well as being more easily searched and navigated. Site development continues.

Chapter Five: Standards 8 and 9, Student Admissions, Retention, and Student Support Services The self-study process affirmed the effectiveness of Kean‘s Office of Admissions, which continues to exceed all enrollment targets while working within an institutional commitment to heightened standards for admission. Recruitment extends to all high schools in New Jersey as well as those in Staten Island, Pennsylvania, and Westchester County, NY, and involves proven technology-smart marketing and advertisements. The collaborative model between Admissions and related offices, such as the Center for Academic Success and the Office of Financial Aid, results in consistent practices that enhance admissions processes and outcomes. The variety of support services available to students also factors in their choice to come to Kean. The scope of these is broad, reinforcing the University‘s mission for diversity. Kean succeeds in attracting students with the potential for success at the University. However retention and graduation rates are low in comparison to peer institutions in the state though comparable to nation-wide data. Other questions concerning support services pertain to resource adequacy, the quality of technology support in residence halls, and disconnect in services between the Kean Union campus and Kean Ocean.

Chapter Six: Standard 10, Faculty Substantive data document the roles, responsibilities, and productivity of Kean‘s resident faculty. An important finding is that all faculty across different groups (discipline and time at the University, for example) publish with relatively the same percentage of productivity. This evidence reflects the current trend at the University to emphasize the research component of faculty portfolios. While representing the vital component for education at Kean, resident faculty are outnumbered by adjunct faculty. In fact, the number of full-time faculty is at a historic low. It has not grown relative to increased student enrollments, and as a result approximately two thirds of resident faculty perform overload responsibilities equivalent to at least 6 credit hours for administrative duties or additional teaching assignments. Demands on faculty— teaching, advisement, service, research and overload assignments—underscored the need for a growth plan to increase the number of full-time faculty. The Faculty Replenishment Plan (Document ES.1) developed in response to this concern outlines a five-year plan for increasing the number of faculty to 450 by 2015- 2016. This plan includes the goal to have the faculty/student ratio at Kean Ocean comparable to that on the Union campus.

Chapter Seven: Standards 11 and 12, Educational Offerings and General Education Undergraduate and graduate course/program development is ongoing and extensive, and well-defined curriculum procedures support the timely approval and processing of proposed changes and revisions. For programs without accreditation and in the absence of an adhered to program review cycle, it is not possible to accurately determine the need for curriculum development. Undergraduate programs are a strength at the institution in terms of scope, depth, and faculty expertise. While the conceptual framework and variety of graduate programs are sound, several issues in graduate education administration have not been resolved despite the creation of the graduate college: (1) the lack of definition about the criteria for and roles of graduate faculty, (2) the absence of standards for delineating the differences between undergraduate and graduate courses, and (3) the structural separation of some of the graduate programs from the graduate college. This chapter also examines General Education. While Kean‘s vertical GE curricular structure is innovative and complementary to the University‘s mission, shortcomings exist. These include student performance in foundations and distribution courses, the challenge of reporting on student progress in foundations courses when grade types vary across the disciplines, the absence of data collection/analysis as established in GE reform approved in 1999, and issues with the GE mathematics course options.

Chapter Eight: Standard 13, Additional Educational Offerings This chapter focuses Kean‘s additional sites, international studies, distance education, and the collateral programs. A strong point among these is the growth at Kean Ocean—student enrollment reaching 1,200 students in three years‘ time—and the successful outreach to new demographics. Also notable are the appointment of a new Director of International Studies and the early successes associated with the integration of the many programs that fall within that rubric. Areas for improvement in Kean‘s additional

xii educational offerings relate to (1) the inconsistencies in academic program requirements, the application of university policy, and services between Kean Union and Kean Ocean; (2) the need to define all facets of distance education: course approval process, faculty training, implementation, assessment of student outcomes; and the current decentralized, non-standardized training for online courses; (3) the lack of data/clarity about the collateral programs; and (4) the need for innovative models of programming outside the regular weekly schedule.

Chapter Nine: Standard 14, Assessment of Student Outcomes Though continuous assessment of student outcomes is limited to accredited programs at the University, rich data from the chairs/coordinators survey capture the assessment activity that exists across all academic programs, both accredited and non-accredited, pointing to best practices and models for future development. Eighty percent of chairs and coordinators responding to the survey indicate that course objectives are consistent across course sections. Seventy percent point to the state or national standards that inform their work. Sixty percent have implemented curricular and programmatic changes based on standards. In addition to the absence of an institution-wide model for the assessment of student outcomes, other weaknesses exist. Consistency across course sections is more evident at the Kean Ocean additional site than the main campus. Chairs and coordinators indicate that adjunct faculty are not informed of assessment outcomes. Slightly more than one quarter of the survey respondents indicated that assessment mechanisms are in place. Pre-testing is limited. Program review is off cycle; and it is uncommon for programs to examine their own graduation rates. College of Education (COE) has disaggregated data for Kean Ocean.

xiii

Middle States Commission on Higher Education 3624 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-2680 Phone: 267-284-5000 Fax: 215-662-5501 www.msche.org

Certification Statement: Compliance with MSCHE Requirements of Affiliation and Federal Title IV Requirements (Effective October 1, 2009)

An institution seeking initial accreditation or reaffirmation of accreditation must affirm by completing this certification statement that it meets or continues to meet established MSCHE requirements of affiliation and federal requirements relating to Title IV program participation, including relevant requirements under the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 such as those on distance education and transfer of credit.

The signed statement must be attached to the executive summary of the institution’s self- study report.

If it is not possible to certify compliance with all such requirements, the institution must attach specific details in a separate memorandum.

______(Name of Institution) is seeking (Check one): ___ Initial Accreditation ___ Reaffirmation of Accreditation

The undersigned hereby certify that the institution meets all established requirements of affiliation of the Middle States Commission on Higher Education and federal requirements relating to Title IV program participation, including relevant requirements under the Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 such as those on distance education and transfer of credit, and that it has complied with the MSCHE policy, “Related Entities.”

___ Exceptions are noted in the attached memorandum (Check if applicable)

______(Chief Executive Officer) (Date)

______(Chair, Board of Trustees or Directors) (Date)

J:\Procedures & Process\CertificationStatementEffectiveOct09

xiv

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE SELF STUDY

“Kean University offered me the opportunity to live the „American Dream‟…obtaining an affordable education while preparing me to work in a competitive environment where graduates are able to meet the demands of an ever changing society.” R.L- Kean Alumnus

In May 2006, Kean University presented its Middle States Periodic Review Report, which is self-described as ―a bold and sweeping snapshot of the institution, capturing the great momentum of its transformation into a comprehensive public university serving undergraduates and graduate students in the liberal arts, the sciences, education, and the professions." The University‘s progress has continued since that time, and the impact of initiatives undertaken as well as directions for the future are the focus of this self study. Through fall 2010, the Steering Committee engaged the Kean community in the intensive self examination, reflection, action, and renewal documented in this report to (1) determine, as the Middle States Commission puts it, how well the University is "fulfilling its mission and achieving its goals" and (2) answer the question "how well are we collectively doing what we say we are doing?"

Overview of Kean University

Contextual factors help explain the dramatic transformation that Kean University continues to experience. Among these are compelling socio-economic trends suggesting the need for today‘s students to obtain a college degree for work in service-oriented sectors. (NACTE Paper-2009) Economic factors align with Kean‘s Mission, affirming its rich tradition for serving diverse, first-generation students while underscoring more than ever the importance of making public education accessible to New Jersey‘s increasing multicultural post-secondary demographic. In the context of service to the region, Kean aspires to deliver World-Class educational experiences to students—programming and activities that transcend anything they have experienced to date, to include field, international, and community-based opportunities. Ironically, Kean‘s ambitious goals and broad expectations for education are set against the continued decrease in state appropriations from 60% of the University budget in 1989 to roughly 20% in 2009.

History Founded as a normal school in 1855, Kean is a state-supported co-educational institution of higher education in the NJ State College system, as defined by the Higher Education Restructuring Act of 1996, NJSA 18A:3B-1 (Document 1.1), and related legislation, attaining university status in 1997. Kean is fully accredited by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education and numerous specialized accrediting groups, including the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE). Originally located in Newark, NJ, Kean moved to its 120-acre Union Township main campus in 1958 on property that had formerly been part of the Kean family estate. The University expanded with additional campuses in nearby Hillside, NJ, after acquiring the 26-acre Pingry School in 1981 and the 22-acre Liberty Hall campus in 2007. The University‘s location is in one of New Jersey‘s most densely populated and diverse suburban regions within reach of large urban areas in Union, Essex, and Middlesex counties. Kean‘s student population fully reflects these demographics. Over the last decade alone, student enrollment has grown from 12,958 in 2005 to 15,939 in 2010, an increase of 23%. Indeed, over the past decade, Kean celebrated its sesquicentennial having transformed into one of the largest cosmopolitan institutions of higher education in the region.

In 1997, when Kean College became Kean University, the institution was a university in name only, struggling to find its footing. Though maintaining its traditional mission, key elements of the institution were problematic. Enrollments did not necessarily reflect optimum service to the state; faculty scholarly

expectations were low; programs and curriculum had stagnated; international operations were spotty; institutional facilities were run-down or out-of-date; and the appearance of the campus impeded recruitment efforts. The past decade has been a period of progress and transformation in the face of the most severe fiscal adversity in recent memory. Kean has maintained its commitment to access and excellence—the core elements of its mission—while it has substantially expanded its enrollments; improved faculty quality and scholarly productivity; and revised and enhanced its undergraduate and graduate programs and curricula, including the addition of doctoral programs. International operations are in development; facilities boast up-to-date buildings, laboratories, and residence halls; and the condition and appearance of the campus is a source of pride to the Kean community and the State.

The balance of this chapter will summarize the key changes at Kean over of the last five years, including evolving student demographics; explain points about the self-study design; and offer an orientation to findings presented in detail in subsequent chapters.

Mission Statement The University‘s mission (Appendix B) has remained constant over time, reflecting an orientation to internal and external communities; the affirmation of historic and diverse traditions, adaptation to trends, the combination of excellence and equity in programming for students, and attention to the potential of global directions and arenas. Aided by the Strategic Plan, Kean‘s mission serves as a guidepost for balancing stability and innovation. Functioning within the framework these provide, the University has carried out a decade-long continuum of development while remaining committed to its student-centered focus. Dedicated to access and diversity, Kean preserves its long history of public service and educational opportunity. Kean reflects on its mission in decision-making processes, resulting in campus revitalization, expanded learning opportunities, and a focus on educational excellence within a global context.

Student Demographic/Enrollment Trends As noted in the 2007-2012 Strategic Plan (Appendix C), Kean has remained accessible to the growing number of secondary graduates. Applications to NJ State Colleges and Universities by full-time, first-time applicants have increased consistently, as is noted in the NJ College/University Accountability Sourcebook 2009 (Appendix D): ―New Jersey has one of the greatest increases in annual production of high school graduates. This year, there will be nearly 100,000 New Jersey public high school graduates, with similar size graduating classes in years 2010-2017‖ (numbers in the 1990s were in the 70,000 range). Institutional enrollment data document five-year growth patterns, reflecting state-wide projections and the elements of diversity that distinguish Kean from peer institutions in the state, region, and nation.

Fig. 1.1 Five-Year Report on Student Enrollment Headcount by Race/Ethnicity Ethnicity Fall 06 Fall 07 Fall 08 Fall 09 Fall 10 # 2525 2570 2745 2804 2989 Black % 19.3% 19.2% 19.3% 18.6% 18.8% Hispanic # 2271 2405 2634 2909 3344 % 17.4% 18.0% 18.5% 19.3% 21.0% Asian # 810 809 901 1083 1114 /AI/AN/PI % 6.2% 6.0% 6.3% 7.2% 7.0% # 6866 6985 7232 7511 7907 White % 52.6% 52.2% 50.9% 49.9% 49.6% MultiRace # 0 0 0 0 122 % 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% Not # 578 625 691 744 463 Reported % 4.4% 4.7% 4.9% 4.9% 2.9% Total 13050 13394 14203 15051 15939 Source: Office of Institutional Research

Students from minority backgrounds comprise approximately half of Kean‘s undergraduate student population and 58% of its first-time full-time classes. The student population also includes a substantial number of part- and full-time non-traditional students. The University‘s diverse student demographics, ranked among the top five in the nation (DiversityInc, 2008), make it a model of future trends for higher education in the United States. Demographers have indicated that growing portions of minority students and students from low-income families will enroll in universities and colleges in the United States in the years ahead. Kean‘s admission data for fall 2010 support this trend, suggesting the University‘s potential to emerge as the national model of diversity in public higher education.

The student body attending Kean is drawn predominantly from local urban areas, and the majority commute to the University. Of the 13,052 undergraduate students attending Kean in fall 2010, 1,950 (15%) lived in the University‘s residence halls. Approximately 70% of Kean‘s students rely on some form of financial assistance to meet educational expenses. Although NJ has the highest annual public national tuition rate (Appendix D: Sourcebook, 2009), Kean‘s tuition ranks among the lowest of state institutions. Indeed, as part of its mission to access and excellence, Kean has consistently kept its tuition affordable. Among its peer comprehensive public universities—Montclair, Rowan, and William Paterson—Kean‘s tuition is the most reasonable. The table below shows the comparison.

Fig. 1.2 New Jersey Universities’ Tuition and Fees Public Colleges 2009-2010 2010-2011 % Increase The College of New Jersey $ 12,989 $13,359 4.3 New Jersey Institute of Technology $12,856 $13,370 4.0 Rutgers University $11,886 $12,559 5.7 Ramapo University $11,416 $11,874 4.0 Rowan University $11234 $11,676 3.9 Richard Stockton University $10,940 $11,393 4.1 William Paterson University $10,838 $11,238 3.7 Montclair State University $9,772 $10,113 3.5 Kean University $9,446 $9,815 3.9 New Jersey City University $8,988 $9,347 4.0 Source: ―Tuition and Fee Increases at New Jersey Colleges." Star Ledger 05 Sep 2010, Print.

Faculty Trends The University‘s 343 full-time faculty are strongly committed to teaching, scholarship, student advisement services and support, and service to the university community. The strengths of individual faculty within these areas vary, reflecting departmental missions and disciplinary trends. Since the mid-1990s and especially with the inauguration of the current president and subsequent administrative changes, expectations of faculty have shifted with greater emphasis on scholarship as a complement to teaching and service. There has been a significant increase in faculty public publications and presentations and recognition at both the national and international level. In addition to the teacher-scholar paradigm shift, the University instituted the Student Instructional Review II (SIR II, an ETS tool) evaluation process in spring 2010. Student perceptions indicate that Kean has maintained its traditional commitment as a teaching institution while undertaking the paradigm shift. Expectations of faculty have, in turn, influenced the retention, tenure, and promotion processes, which is a complex matter given the number of faculty and their varied ranks/time at the University.

Transformation to Academic Programming and Services for the 21st Century

Although Kean continues to play a key role in the training of teachers, it has also grown into a major hub of educational, technological, and cultural enrichment. Since 2001, academic programming has expanded, reflecting market trends and the needs of students. Currently, Kean University offers 48 undergraduate

academic degree programs, 34 master‘s degrees, two post-master‘s professional diplomas, and two doctoral programs as well as supplemental opportunities and services, such as funded summer research with faculty partners; academic partnerships with other universities, including those abroad; prospects for leadership roles; and a significant increase in the number of scholarships available. Also, Kean boasts over 200 support services and programs for its students, providing enormous opportunities and support for the 16,000 undergraduate and graduate students the University now serves.

The development of remote educational sites reflects recent initiatives to offer Kean‘s affordable programs in geographical areas with large numbers of underserved students. As such, Kean has developed partnerships with two of the State‘s county colleges—Ocean County College (OCC) and Raritan Valley Community College (RVCC)—and offers upper-division courses at their campuses, allowing for the completion of specific Kean undergraduate and graduate programs. The partnership at OCC has grown into Kean Ocean, an additional location that offers nearly 20 undergraduate degree programs as well as selected graduate studies to southern New Jersey residents. Groundbreaking for the new gateway facility at Kean Ocean has taken place and construction is underway.

As a result of globalization efforts, Kean‘s community now also extends to other countries and continents. The newly-formed Center for International Studies (CIS) administers agreements for academic partnerships with universities in Europe, Asia, and the Americas; works to develop additional international partnerships; supports Study Abroad; and organizes Travelearn programs. Additionally, a new school housed in COE, the School of Global Education and Innovation, was founded in 2009. Its mission is to prepare our students for global teaching opportunities.

Initiatives over the Past Ten Years In July 2003, Kean‘s leadership structure changed with the seating of Dr. Dawood Farahi as the 17th President of the University. With this transition came a paradigm shift in leadership and strategic focus, one characterized by institutional planning pre-emptive in nature; administrative change at various levels; a focus on quality and accountability; shifting expectations of university employees, particularly faculty; and a multi-phase re-structuring plan. Institutional initiatives since 2003 have included a multi-million dollar investment in technology and facilities, campus beautification; globalization efforts, increased enrollments, and expanded programming for innovation and response to market trends.

Reorganization and Re-Structuring Since Kean‘s decennial review, numerous internal changes have taken place, altering structures and operations. A survey of these includes the elimination of the Office of Enrollment Services, which occurred during the 2004-2006 periodic review process; the re-structuring of the Division of Administration and Finance, specifically a change in the leadership role from Vice President of the aforementioned to Executive Vice President of Operations; the elimination of the Division of University Relations and the introduction of the Office of Media and Publications, which reports directly to the President, and in conjunction a change in the housing of Athletics to Operations; and creation of four new positions in the Office of the Provost: Associate VPAA, Acting Associate VPAA for Kean Ocean, Assistant VPAA, and Director of Assessment.

An administrative multi-year plan to re-structure Academic Affairs is currently underway. The first phase (2006) concentrated on advisement, specifically the elimination of a centralized advisement function and the re-assignment of all advisement responsibilities to resident faculty, the implementation of which continues today. A second critical change occurred in spring 2008 with the revamping of the course schedule to improve space utilization. Integrating two- and three-day programming as well as weekend courses, the model (Appendix E) has increased space utilization on Fridays from 13% to 45% and eased parking demands all other days of the week. Summer 2009 focused on academic programs, specifically the elimination of the undergraduate social work and philosophy majors and the re-structuring of others.

Today, the re-structuring of Academic Affairs continues. In early 2010, the University began to phase out most academic departments, replacing them with Schools administered by Executive Directors (who will move out of the bargaining unit and into 12-month managerial status) along with coordinators of degree programs (who will continue in the bargaining unit). (Appendix F) Initially, four new Academic Schools were approved and embedded within their respective colleges: the Busch School of Design in the College of Visual and Performing Arts, the School of Environmental and Life Sciences and the School of Nursing in the College of Natural and Applied Sciences, and the School of Global Education and Innovation in the College of Education. Additional schools have come on line, although a number of departments remain intact pending further study of their status or because executive directors are not yet in place. In the process of re-structuring Academic Affairs, Kean‘s orientation to curricular innovation has remained intact. The six programmatic areas of academic excellence—Sustainability, Nursing, the Doctorate in Psychology (PsyD), History, Communication Disorders and Deafness, and the Progressive Science Initiative (PSI)— continue to deliver experiences and opportunities compatible with Kean‘s aspirations for World-Class Education. Given the pressing need to absorb the impact of the ongoing state and national fiscal crisis, the reorganization continues to generate campus-wide discussion. The Faculty Senate held two open fora regarding reorganization, and the campus community expressed their opinions in the public sessions of the Board of Trustees.

Programs and Services New academic programs have expanded Kean‘s mission and reach. Two doctoral programs have been approved, and classes recruited reflect a large, strong applicant pool. A major accomplishment is the New Jersey Center for Science, Technology and Mathematics (NJCSTM), which was established to provide comprehensive research-based educational and outreach programs. The centerpiece is a five-year combined undergraduate/master‘s program, with an education track (scientist-teachers) and a professional track (bench scientists). The Center also offers programs in biotechnology and biomedicine that have attracted statewide attention. The Kean/Drexel medical program and Kean/NJIT engineering program are among two new offerings. New construction housing the NJCSTM opened in June 2010. This impressive edifice, one of the most modern and up-to-date instructional facilities in New Jersey, represents a capital expenditure unequaled in the public arena in view of New Jersey‘s unwillingness to fund higher education‘s capital budget for facilities (Appendix D: Sourcebook 2010) For additional information on NJCSTM, turn to p. 10.

While advancing innovation in education, Kean University remains cognizant of the financial, personal, and academic challenges students face when attempting to complete their degree work in a timely manner. To this end, the University has introduced a number of novel strategies and interventions to support student success. The hub for these is the Center for Academic Success—the physical and intellectual space that brings under a single roof new student services as well as Transition to Kean (T2K), Kean‘s freshman seminar; learning assistance; and career planning. Refer to page 45 for additional information. In support of teaching and learning as well as student services, the University has increased its Internet connectivity with campus wireless access, KUair, and modernized academic and administrative computing.

Facilities and Campus Environment Campus beautification and site improvement efforts have been extensive, dramatically altering the visible image of the University since the last decennial accreditation. Kean modernized its physical plant with various restorations, additions, and routine maintenance and has expanded the campus with the acquisition of Liberty Hall. It is important to note that these improvements and capital expansion have taken place without the benefit of state funding. Although institutional investment in facilities has been funded through debt service, Kean‘s bond rating remains strong (A- from both Moody‘s and Standard & Poor‘s), its fiscal status is healthy, and the institution continues to enjoy thorough Sarbanes Oxley (SOX) oversight. Physically, Kean no longer resembles its former self, as described in the 2001 self study, and the new campus look is a significant factor in all recruitment efforts.

The completion of the Center for Academic Success in 2006, now the Maxine and Jack Lane Center for Academic Success, ushered in the transformation of Kean University. This academic hub, described by John Gardner of the Policy Center on the First Year of College as ―the Taj Mahal of student academic support services,‖ is the physical and intellectual space that brings multiple services under a single roof. General Education, free academic tutoring in all subject areas, academic advising for undeclared majors, the first-year seminar, career planning, Veterans Affairs, transfer admissions, as well as selected registration and financial aid functions are available to students six days a week on an extended schedule.

Additional enhancements have further improved the campus environment and built community. The former Pingry School was renovated into Kean's East Campus, now home to the Nathan Weiss Graduate College and the 312-seat Enlow Recital Hall. The renovation of the Nancy Thompson Library is now complete with study halls, full-service Starbucks, and the addition of the Human Rights Institute (refer to p. 10 for additional information). The New Jersey Center for Science Technology and Mathematics (also featured on pp. 9-10), a green energy building with instructional and research facilities unequaled in the state, opened in fall 2010. Next to this Center is Kean's national treasure, Liberty Hall. This fifty-room mansion was originally built by the first Governor of New Jersey and then became home of the Kean Family for over 230 years. Liberty Hall campus, which will eventually include multiple archival and research opportunities of national scope, provides students and faculty with a wealth of historical documents and cultural artifacts. Renovated academic units, faculty offices, and study halls for students with various amenities are visible around campus, offering facilities for our teacher-scholars and well- appointed spaces for our students, from lounges and recreation rooms to galleries and exhibit areas.

Nature and Scope of the Study

During the self-study process, the campus community‘s views on accreditation and assessment shifted, emphasizing the nature of these processes as continuous rather than episodic. The institution has treated the self-study document in its various iterations as a living process and has set about to resolve shortcomings during the study, whenever possible. The overarching charge to the Steering Committee —to conduct a candid evaluation of the institution and formulate recommendations for addressing shortcomings —reflects these values.

Research Design and Implementation The project followed the approved research design (Document 1.2) and was supported by a number of significant adjustments: creation of Executive Committee of the Steering Committee; the assignment of Executive Committee Liaisons to the Working Groups; the formation of an additional chapter (Chapter 8) for Standard 13: Additional Educational Opportunities, which, due to the scope and focus of content gathered, no longer appeared compatible with its original placement with Standards 8 and 9; and the addition of the Director of Assessment to the team upon his appointment to Kean in February 2010.

In order to collect data, the team incorporated a variety of research modalities, from surveys to focus groups, interviews, report gathering, access to governing processes and documents, and meetings with all campus constituencies, including the University Board, to gather information and insights. The in-house MS data collection template (Appendix G) that was also used for the 2006 Periodic Review Report (Appendix K) organized the gathering of uniform baseline data and ensured campus-wide participation while also allowing for comparisons with 2006 findings. In July 2010, all working groups gathered for retreats and writing workshops in order to complete the first draft report. A university-wide distribution and review of this draft document commenced in August 2010. Multiple mechanisms for obtaining input and feedback were available: an online open-ended response form, public fora, and presentations to standing committees. At different points in the process, the Executive Committee and selected team members participated in MSCHE events for orientation and guidance: the 2009 and 2010 Annual Conferences and an Assessment Retreat in spring 2010.

Accomplishments, Findings, and Action Plans Significant strengths immediately came to light when the self-study process began. Paramount among these are Kean‘s enduring mission; the campus constituencies who embrace this mission, dedicating themselves to serve our students through it; the quality of faculty output in teaching, scholarship, and service; and the unprecedented course and program development that positions Kean as a leader in both established and emerging fields. Also notable are the Library collections and services, which have undergone momentous transformation since Kean‘s 2001 Self Study. Viewed then as a significant challenge, the Library is now a considerable strength with the capacity to support the scholarly activity of faculty and students alike. The University‘s transformed physical environment complements all programs and services, offering an impressive setting for teaching and learning. This overview of strengths is incomplete without mention of the success of Transforming Lives, Kean‘s recent capital campaign, which set a new standard for institutional development that will serve as a benchmark for future efforts.

As expected, the self-study process drew attention to Kean‘s challenges, both externally regarding the economy and internally in terms of operations and policies. Through the self-study period, interaction with the university administration about the institution‘s challenges was open and ongoing, spurring action to resolve issues and concerns. As Kean presents this self-study, its position in the area of assessment is much different than in 2009, when no centralized assessment was in place for the University as a whole, yet pockets of effective assessment existed in programs with formal accreditation requirements. Early in the process, for example, candid discussions about Kean‘s assessment needs led to a string of important accomplishments: the creation of the Office of Accreditation and Assessment1, approval and staffing of the position of the Director of Assessment, and development of both a long-term assessment action plan and an Assessment Toolkit (Appendix H), which is currently in implementation.

The Steering Committee‘s interviews with administrators and managers were particularly successful in facilitating institutional improvement plans. These in-person exchanges reinforced the purpose of the self- study and the MSCHE Characteristics of Excellence, spurring colleagues to action and addressing shortcomings. The interview process resulted in a number of accomplishments: the development of an assessment plan for the Office of Human Resources (Document 1.3); an improved, more student-friendly financial aid website; formation of a GE Task Force to bring campus-wide expertise to reorganization plans for the program; and comprehensive mission and vision statements as well as goals/objectives for the Office of Academic Affairs. An Ad Hoc Senate Committee on Assessment supported these initiatives with recommendations about protocols and the formation of a Senate Commitment on Assessment.

The self-study revealed areas of concern, such as keeping the website current, retention and graduation rates, managing employee turnover or transition, short- and long-term staffing plans, turnover in leadership positions, and technology services. Due to the University President‘s desire to incorporate institutional improvement plans into the self-study process, the Executive Committee of the Steering Committee developed two matrices that will enable the campus community to continue the momentum of this self- study. The first of these, the Improvement Action Plan Matrix (Appendix I), outlines specific initiatives underway, along with action steps, responsible parties, status, and timelines for completion. The second (Appendix J) links all recommendations in this self-study with Faculty Senate Committees as well as institutional lines of responsibility so that charges for the latter can reflect and aid improvement.

Over the two year self-study period, the Steering Committee succeeded in achieving the transparent examination of the University it aimed to conduct. Interactions across the University have already advanced Kean, affirming its mission, further aligning it with MSCHE, and validating the structure, process, and outcomes of the 2009-2011 self-study process, as presented in this report.

1 Selected appropriate materials from this office will be relocated to Kean‘s main campus library for the visiting team‘s use during April 17-20, 2011.

CHAPTER 2 MISSION AND GOALS (STANDARD 1) AND INSTITUTIONAL ASSESSMENT (STANDARD 7)

Standard 1: Mission and Goals Kean’s Steadfast Mission

Principal data sources for this section include the University’s the Mission Statement, the 2007-2012 Strategic Plan, the 2006 Middle States Periodic Review Report, President’s Annual Opening Address to the Campus Community, and an interview with the Vice President of Campus Planning.

Kean‘s mission statement clearly defines its purpose in preparing students for society. The University is student-focused, providing excellent and accessible education to a diverse population, and serves as a major resource for regional advancement.

Founded in 1855 as a gateway for social mobility especially to train teachers of New Jersey‘s new immigrants, Kean offered access to education for those wanting to share the benefit of life in the US, a mission it has never abandoned. Throughout its 155-year history, Kean has undergone multiple name changes—from Newark Normal School (1855), Newark State College (1958), Kean College of New Jersey (1974) to the present-day Kean University (1997). The University has experienced tremendous growth and expansion both geographically and in its student population. Over the last decade, student enrollment has grown from 12,958 in 2005 to 15,939 in 2010, an increase of 23%. Program offerings have expanded, and academic curricula have been enhanced to include two doctoral programs, Kean‘s first at this level of study, that commenced in fall 2008. Geographically, Kean Ocean now serves as a new location, and the Liberty Hall Museum and grounds are now part of the Kean campus. In the midst of unprecedented change and expansion, Kean has remained consistent and steadfast in its mission.

Kean’s Mission and Strategic Plan

In 2006, the University Planning Council revisited the 2001 Mission Statement in conjunction with the writing of the 2007-2012 Strategic Plan. From this review came an updated version of it, one with minor changes in wording and the addition of explicit statements about globalization. This modified version was incorporated into the Strategic Plan and approved by the Board of Trustees in 2007. It re-affirms Kean‘s purpose to serve undergraduate and graduate students in the liberal arts, the sciences, and the professions, while establishing itself as a public, interactive university, and to prepare them, via a high quality faculty, staff, and demanding programs, to think critically, creatively and globally so as to adapt to changing social, economic and technological environments. Above all, Kean remains committed to diversity, excellence, and equity for students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

While the basic elements of the updated mission correspond with the previous one, it refers to Kean as ‗cosmopolitan‘ rather than ‗metropolitan‘ as stated in the 2001 version. The reference broadens institutional scope, encouraging students to think from a ‗global‘ perspective and conveying a commitment to ―provid[e] global educational opportunities for students and faculty.‖ This current version of the mission statement also emphasizes the University‘s dedication to ‗excellence‘ and to a ‗student-centered‘ educational environment.

The 2007-2012 Strategic Plan (Appendix C) clearly charts directions that are compatible with the institution‘s mission: Reaching Excellence, Enriching the Campus Community, and Strengthening the Campus Infrastructure. Each encompasses ten goals along with specified objectives. For the past five

years, funding has been provided for internal competitive grants to support specific objectives of the plan through the Quality First Initiatives (QFI). A list of projects funded to date is included in Document 2.1. The Strategic Plan also outlines implementation and evaluation plans for measuring Kean‘s fulfillment of these goals and directions although few statements express measurable outcomes or link to specific measurements for evaluating progress and effectiveness. In effect, then, the Strategic Plan is diagnostic rather than operational, and this characteristic may reduce or limit its use in rigorous institutional assessment. Recognizing this, the University has made specification of measurable outcomes in the next Strategic Plan a priority. The current Strategic Plan is under evaluation by the University Planning Council (UPC), and a schedule of assessment activities surrounding the document are in motion culminating in the development of a new Strategic Plan for 2012-2017 that will include measurable outcomes.

Familiarity with the Strategic Plan and the new Mission Statement, which was only recently posted on the University website, is fairly limited. Relative to planning and campus wide involvement, the situation raises questions about steps that should be taken following approval of institutional documents to raise awareness. Transition of leadership in the UPC and changes to the Council‘s focus and charge may account for the lack of clarity about responsibility for promoting the Strategic Plan, as well as leading and monitoring its implementation and evaluation. However, the pattern of limited awareness of centrally- important documents also suggests the need for more effective communication and dissemination of information on campus.

Initiatives that Fulfill the University’s Mission

Student-Centered Environment and Community Outreach Various programs and initiatives advance the core elements of Kean‘s mission to deliver quality programs in a student-centered environment, to serve as a major resource in the region, and to provide global opportunities for both faculty and students.

A cornerstone of Kean University's commitment to students is the Maxine and Jack Lane Center for Academic Success (CAS), which was completed in 2005. Integrating advisement, learning support, and career counseling in a physical structure seamlessly designed for this interface, the Center aims to address students‘ academic and informational needs across levels and majors. The only facility of its kind in NJ, CAS places students at the top of the priority list, aligning with the University‘s mission statement. CAS directly supplements classroom experiences through a number of academic support programs and services that are covered in detail in Chapter 5, pp. 46-47.

Students at Kean enjoy enrichment opportunities that complement classroom learning. Among these is the Students Partnering with Faculty (SpF) Summer Research Program, which supports opportunities for students to conduct research side by side with faculty. More than 100 students and faculty members have participated in this Program since its inception in 2004, expanding their scholarly horizons by presenting at prestigious conferences and winning awards at these and other academic competitions. The Center for Leadership Service (CLS) exemplifies another opportunity for students. Since its establishment, the CLS has united students in service to various causes, such as blood and clothing drives, Community FoodBank of NJ, and ―Be the Change,‖ a program that involved Kean students in the renovation of a homeless shelter for teenage girls. The Hopkins Material Transfer Agreement, which transforms undergraduate science research by enabling students to move beyond a standard textbook approach to medical research and experimentation, and The McNair Scholars Program are two more enrichment examples. Providing opportunities of the caliber described here, Kean University delivers quality programs and affirms its focus on students.

The programs of study from which Kean University students choose reflect the faculty‘s ongoing curriculum renewal in response to market trends. A plethora of opportunities are available. Noteworthy among these is the New Jersey Center for Science, Technology, and Mathematics (NJCSTM). Established in 2004 to meet the State's demand for qualified science and mathematics teachers, physicians, and scientific researchers, the Center capitalizes on the State‘s geographic benefits as the hub for many internationally-renowned technological, pharmaceutical, computer, and engineering corporations. The program has flourished in the past six years, graduating its first cohort in 2008 and celebrating the grand opening of its state of the art facility in June 2010. The facility, a six-story 133,000 square-foot (LEED- certified) structure, houses a 320-seat auditorium, 8 enhanced and fully-interactive classrooms, 10 state-of- the-art laboratories and a geothermal climate control system. The Center will also include a restaurant that the Kean University Foundation and the Conklin Conference Center will operate.

Global Perspective The Center for International Studies (CIS) coordinates the activities of Kean University faculty, staff, and students to integrate international education into the University. CIS administers agreements for academic partnerships with foreign universities, organizes Travelearn programs, and supports Study Abroad. Travelearn, Kean‘s short-term, faculty-led study abroad program, offers participants an enriched international travel experience. Nearly a dozen such programs are available each year. Long-term Study Abroad programs provide extended immersion opportunities and academically challenging and rewarding global experiences in a collegiate setting; participants have the opportunity to select from programs offered in over thirty different nations. Additionally, a number of joint ventures offer exchange opportunities that have benefited both international and domestic students as well as faculty. For additional information about CIS, the programs it administers, and the level of student participation, refer to Chapter 8, pp. 90- 92.

Kean‘s growing emphasis on global opportunities has led to new curricula, such as the Masters of Business Administration in Global Management, a unique area of study that responds to the transformation of many businesses into global enterprises and prepares managers to succeed in a global business environment. The founding of the School of Global Education and Innovation is another significant advancement, one that prepares students to compete in global markets in the digital age.

Resources for Regional Advancement Kean University‘s very long history of serving numerous constituencies in the local, regional, and statewide arenas has advanced its outreach mission. Initiatives that serve as resources for both the campus and broader communities include the partnership with Liberty Hall Museum, which Kean finalized in 2007. Built in 1772 on the eve of the American Revolution and located directly across the street from Kean‘s main campus, Liberty Hall was the home of New Jersey‘s first elected governor and signer of the Constitution, William Livingston. It has been a silent witness to more than 200 years of American history—a witness that has become a treasure-trove of manuscripts and artifacts for students, faculty, and local communities (Fall 2007 Challenge of Kean Magazine). Kean‘s Human Rights Institute, which has been in existence for the past 2 years and now assumes a physical presence in the Nancy Thompson Library, aims to conduct research and raise awareness of human rights violations worldwide among the general public, teachers and students. The Institute‘s goals are to combat genocide and promote conflict resolution through wide-ranging activities, including conferences, seminars, teacher training and curricula developed for New Jersey school children. A state-of-art gallery highlights artwork and publications related to human rights violations and victories around the world (Press release by the Office of Media & Publications).

Kean‘s Small Business Development Center (SBDC) has been serving Union County entrepreneurs for 20 years by providing free counseling and low-cost training to individuals starting new or growing small businesses. The SBDC continues collaborations with over 100 outside organizations. In 2009, Kean‘s SBDC developed a ‗Recession-Proof Initiative‘ focusing on stabilizing business activities in a downward

economy and added specific strategies to its counseling and training activities. Their national accreditation review in 2009 resulted in passing ‗without condition‘, a rare and highly favorable outcome in terms of SBDC reviews. The SBDC added co-sponsorship of several conferences with the 2006-founded IRS Hispanic Small Business Forum.

The visual and performing arts hold particular appeal in all Kean University community outreach efforts. Premiere Stages, Kean‘s Equity Theatre Program, began in 2004 and serves approximately 6,000 students, seniors and groups with educational programs, presentations such as a playwriting contest for local playwrights, summer camps, and outreach programs in school districts. The 350-seat Enlow Hall, a state- of-the-art venue designed specifically for acoustic music, opened its doors in October 2009. It immediately makes Kean a premiere venue for renowned artists such as Michael Feinstein, who performed at the acoustically-superb facility‘s grand opening. The Annual Thinking Creatively Conference, presented in partnership by the Art Directors Club of New Jersey (ADCNJ) and the University‘s Rob Busch School of Design, brings to campus world-class professionals from the design industry for a two-day seminar geared toward enlightening creative professionals and students of design. The conference features a broad range of presentations promoting creative thinking and various design components.

Striving to support the community with a number of projects, programs and services, Kean University has grown in both stature and visibility over the course of its history.

Kean University complies with Standard 1. Detailed Strengths, Challenges, and Recommendations for this Standard are listed in Appendix A, p. A-1.

Standard 7: Institutional Assessment

The 2007-2012 Strategic Plan; the 2006 Middle States Periodic Review Report; Institutional Research Data and Reports, which include a Five-Year External/Internal Study of Performance Indicators; and Self-Study Data Collection Templates provide information for this section of the report.

Institutional Value for Assessment

Kean University values assessment and has long recognized its importance in the pursuit of a World-Class Education. The 2002-2007 Strategic Plan (Appendix C), for example, stated that Kean was to ―develop and implement a plan for assessing student outcomes, program improvement, and unit operations.‖ It also called for the appointment of a coordinator of assessment to assist with the design of a systematic plan outlining expectations, strategies, a timeline, and resources; educate the campus constituency about measurable outcomes; and establish a connection between assessment and planning. As well, the 2006 Middle States Periodic Review Report (Appendix K) recommended the formation of an Assessment Committee to function as a subcommittee of the University Planning Council, naming the position an institutional priority. The current Strategic Plan once again lists Accountability and Assessment as a primary institutional goal. It specifies that Kean is ―to implement a university-wide and comprehensive outcome assessment plan to evaluate student learning, program quality, and institutional effectiveness.‖

A number of units at various levels throughout the University regularly conduct assessment activities. In fact, many units, both academic and non-academic, have well-designed comprehensive assessment plans, as will be discussed later. These have been implemented diligently, and results have been used for continuous program improvement. To date, however, the variety of existing assessment practices have not been integrated or extended to full campus participation despite numerous statements recognizing the importance of systematic assessment in key documents over the past decade. Assessment has primarily been a function of accredited programs within the Division of Academic Affairs and more recently across the Division of Student Affairs.

In conjunction with the self-study, an Office of Accreditation and Assessment has been created, together with the newly-created position Director of Assessment, which was staffed in February 2010. A new Faculty Senate2 Assessment Committee has been formed also, largely due to the findings of this self study. With the new Director‘s action plan in place, Kean is positioned to make assessment coherent, consistent, and sustainable across the University.

Assessment Activities at Kean

Institutional assessment and assessment of student learning outcomes are underway in various academic and non-academic units; many of these initiatives are in depth and extensive in scope.

University Level The Office of Institutional Research generated a comprehensive Performance Indicators Report in 2007 and again in 2010 (Appendix L) to measure institutional effectiveness. The report provides five-year trend data on many key performance indicators—from input (student characteristics), to process (institutional operations), and to output (student outcomes). The report depicts an overall picture of how Kean has changed over the five-year period and how it compares with New Jersey peer institutions.

2 Kean‘s Faculty Senate has approved a new Constitution, which, among other matters, renames the body as the University Senate and is pending final review/approval by the University President.

The Performance Indicators Report portrays Kean‘s progress over time. It clearly reveals Kean‘s strengths and weaknesses, and it provides evidence of the assessment of institutional effectiveness. Some indicators, such as the input indicators Minority Percentage, Percent Needing Remediation, and Percent Receiving Federal (Pell) Grant, confirm Kean‘s commitment to diversity and to serving all students including those from academically disadvantaged backgrounds. The output indicators of Retention Rate, Four-Year, Five- Year, and Six-Year Graduation Rates document Kean‘s improvement in these areas over time while showing that greater effort and progress are needed to match the performance of peer institutions. The process indicators Percent of Full-Time Faculty and Percent of Courses Taught by Full-Time Faculty show a steady downward trend and underscore the need to bring more quality full-time faculty on board, a particularly challenging task for public universities in these difficult economic times.

In addition to the performance indicators, the President and other executive officers review other reports every semester. These cover a variety of topics related to institutional performance and effectiveness, including Student and Faculty Profile, Program Enrollment Highlights and Enrollment Trends, Full-Time Faculty Release Time, Full-Time Faculty Office Hours, Classroom Utilization, and Department Profiles, etc. (Document 2.2: Presidential Reports) The President and other senior administrators use information in these reports to confirm or re-direct the University‘s course.

Every year, Kean generates two Annual Institutional Profiles, one mandated by Middle States and another required by the NJ Commission on Higher Education (NJCHE). The latter (Document 2.3) documents the condition of the institution and measures institutional effectiveness with information on student characteristics, faculty characteristics, academic programs, degrees conferred, student retention and graduation rates, and research and capital projects, etc. This profile is an annual accountability report that is placed in the State Public Libraries and also published on the NJCHE website.

The aforementioned reports provide a wealth of information on institutional effectiveness and serve as a partial assessment of Kean‘s attainment of mission and goals. However, these reports are not systematically designed or aligned specifically to measurable objectives in the University‘s mission and goals. To carry out a systematic institutional assessment, we first need to identify and establish measurements for each goal and its corresponding objectives and then systematically collect and analyze data measure by measure. The distribution of most of the aforementioned existing reports had been restricted to senior administrators until recently. Campus-wide engagement with this type of data will enhance the University‘s ability to assess and improve itself based upon data.

Unit Level – Academic Units One entire college (College of Education), five departments (Design, Music, Theatre, Fine Arts, and Special Education/Literacy), and 20 individual programs are accredited by various professional accrediting agencies and specialized professional associations. These accreditations cover half of Kean‘s academic programs with over 44% of the total students enrolled. These units have established systematic ways to carry out activities for assessing their own performance as well as student outcomes.

Among those units, the College of Education (COE) stands out as an excellent example. All units in the COE have been reaffirmed by NCATE recently (2010) without recommendations for improvement. COE has had a well-designed comprehensive assessment plan in place since 2000 (Document 2.4: COE Unit Assessment System). This plan presents the College‘s mission in terms of outcomes and clearly includes learning outcomes and institutional standards for different programs at different stages. Several matrices detail each outcome along with assessment benchmarks, assessment tools, responsible persons, and the process for each outcome. The matrices chart continuous assessment at different stages, including admissions, internship/practicum, program completion, and post-graduation. Another matrix specifies the timeframe for data collection, data collection methods, and ways to use data. The COE Assessment Plan is an evolving document that undergoes ongoing revision and updating. Assessment results are used for

improving student performance, program quality, and unit operations. Examples on how COE has used assessment data in improving student performance and unit operations can be found in its NCATE Institutional Report 2010. (Document 2.5: COE NCATE Institutional Report – 2010). NCATE is also discussed in Chapter 9 on pp. 104 and 105. The entire COE assessment system by standard along with all data is available online at www.kean.edu/~NCATE and requires no password for full viewing.

In addition to units with external accreditations, other units are also carrying out assessment. The results of a recent survey of all department chairs show that 91% of Kean‘s degree programs conduct some type of assessment on a regular basis (Refer to Chapter 9 for more information). Kean also has had a tradition of program review, under which every academic program , 20% of all programs per year, conducts a self- study in a five-year cycle. Kean‘s Program Review Guidelines (Appendix M) state that ―the primary purpose of program review is to foster excellence in education. . . . [and] to identify areas of strength and address areas that need improvements.‖ Program Review Guidelines require programs to examine if ―[it] is meeting its goals and objectives and the relationship of these goals and objectives to the mission of the University.‖ The Guidelines also stipulate that programs provide assessment data on each learning outcome and provide evidence that the assessment data has been used to improve the program.

For years, program review had been carried out consistently as a process of assessment at the unit level under the auspices of the VPAA and the College Deans. The most recent schedule was created in 2004 for the 2004-2010 review periods (Document 2.6). Due to frequent turnover in the offices of the VPAA and the College Deans, this schedule has been off track since 2005. During the two-year period from 2003 and 2004, the position of Vice President for Academic Affairs was re-staffed four times. During about the same period of time, most colleges also experienced heavy transition in the Offices of the Deans. From 2003 to 2005, the College of Business and Public Administration, for example, had four deans; the College of Natural, Applied and Health Sciences had four deans also; the College of Education three; and the College of Humanities and Social Sciences two deans. Further detail can be found on p.35, Fig. 4.5. This frequent change among academic officers has made the continuation of policies and practices challenging.

Assessment initiatives are in process, including a plan for re-instating program review on a three-year cycle starting in fall 2011 and an assessment plan for the Academic Affairs Reorganization: Organizing for Student Success. Information about both will be available during the April 2011 site visit.

Unit Level – Non-Academic Units Assessment activities for non-academic units are wide-spread, although not standardized or centrally coordinated. Among the 26 units that completed and submitted the in-house Middle States Data Collection Template, 21 (81%) indicated that some types of assessment activities are carried out in the unit. The Division of Student Affairs is a good example of assessment in non-academic units. The seven units within this division–Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs, Office of Student Conduct, Counseling and Disability Services, Health Services, Residence Life, Center for Leadership and Service, and University Center Administration—have created a division strategic plan consisting of ten goals and expected outcomes as well as unit implementation plans. These plans measure unit effectiveness, utilize data to inform program improvement, and communicate results in year-end reports. (Document 2.7: Division of Student Affairs Strategic Plan) As a result of the self-study process, structures and processes are now in place to fully implement assessment strategies across all other non-academic units.

Although the institution lacks five years’ data across all units and Kean University is not in full compliance with Standard 7, all elements are in place to generate useable, sustainable assessment data across both academic and non-academic programs by the time of our Periodic Review Report in 2016. Detailed Strengths, Challenges, and Recommendations for Standard 7 are listed in Appendix A, p. A-1.

CHAPTER 3 PLANNING, RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS, AND INSTITUTIONAL RENEWAL (STANDARD 2) AND INSTITUTIONAL RESOURCES (STANDARD 3)

Standard 2: Planning, Resource Allocations, and Institutional Renewal Planning Processes and Structures

Audited financial reports, The New Jersey Association of Colleges and Universities Sourcebook, internal documents, the 2007-2012 Strategic Plan, and the University Planning Council served as the primary data sources for examining this standard.

Over the past five years, University planning has occurred primarily at the executive level. At other organizational levels, planning has been sporadic. For the purposes of this self study, campus-wide planning reports representing all units, colleges/offices, and divisions have not been available. The 2006 Periodic Review (Appendix K) reported an emerging planning model at the University, whose cornerstone components consist of the University Planning Council (UPC) and the Leadership Council. A third element is the Facilities Master Plan. The following descriptions focus on each of these components as well as the extent to which they do/do not interface with one another in an effort to define the University‘s priorities and goals.

University Planning Council The UPC, with members from divisions, units, departments, and offices across the operational structure of Kean University, brings a cross-section of the campus community together to lay out the institution‘s directions and monitor progress towards them. Specific representation on this particular body includes the Faculty Senate, Student Organizations (undergraduate and graduate), various academic and administrative units, managerial and executive staff, and the bargaining units. The primary five-year cycle of the current council‘s work culminated in the development and approval of the University‘s 2007-2012 Strategic Plan. (Appendix C)

In 2006, President Farahi charged the UPC with development of this plan, emphasizing three major areas for consideration: (a) Reaching Excellence, (b) Enriching the Campus Community, and (c) Strengthening the Campus Infrastructure. To proceed, the UPC followed the methods and processes established with the re-vitalization of institutional planning in the mid-1990s. Initial work focused on development of an ―Environmental Scan,‖ a report of the socio-political, demographic, educational, economic, technological, and competitive elements of the external environment that would impact Kean University during the life of the new 2007-2012 Strategic Plan. Comprehensive analysis of and response to the data collected for this scan involved solicitation of feedback campus-wide via an electronic questionnaire. Actual development of the new Strategic Plan was preceded by minor revisions to the 2000 University Mission Statement and the convening of internal and external focus groups charged with participating in a university-wide needs assessment. Following a campus-wide input period, the Plan was approved by the Faculty Senate membership, the University President, and the Kean University Board of Trustees.

The approved plan outlines the university-wide planning process (Appendix C, p. 55), offering a firm calendar for both implementation and evaluation. Although the document states explicitly that ―Each department and area [is] required to develop short- and long-term priorities that addressed ―specific objectives and goals within their purview,‖ to date activity of this nature has not occurred uniformly and consistently at all levels of campus operations. While the Strategic Plan serves as a guidepost for the

University, systematic efforts are needed to drive informed, inclusive, and deliberate institutional planning activity.

Leadership Council Originally formed to increase participation of and interaction among the university governing structures, the Leadership Council has the potential to inform as well as facilitate campus-wide planning. Membership includes chairs of long established campus policy and planning entities, such as Faculty Senate and the University Planning Council; representatives of all bargaining units; and student representatives. The Leadership Council also includes the President‘s staff, the Provost, university vice presidents, and a representative from the Board of Trustees. The Council was formed to create a forum for all constituencies to address operational issues on campus and ensure their effective resolution. Members are solicited for agenda items to be discussed at eight regularly-scheduled meetings during the academic year. When no agenda items are brought forward, meetings are cancelled in an effort to be respectful of constituents‘ calendars.

Facilities Master Plan A third component tied to the planning model is the Facilities Master Plan (Campus Planning), which details campus construction and renovation plans over a prescribed period. A Facilities Master Plan was developed in 1999 for the period of 1999-2009. Since the Periodic Review, Kean has continued to engage in building projects, anticipate expansion, and focus on campus beautification, at times working outside the parameters of the 1999 Master Plan. During the fall 2010 semester, the Board of Trustees approved a July 2011 timeframe for contract development of a new Master Plan. (Additional discussion noted further in this chapter.)

Planning in Response to External Circumstances Over the past ten years, external circumstances have impacted university planning. Among these are budgetary considerations, demographic changes, and legislation governing the interactions between state and community colleges.

Budgetary Considerations The primary sources of revenue for the University have traditionally been state funding combined with student tuition and fees. Grants, income generated through the Kean Foundation, and, more recently, partnerships with Ocean County College and Raritan Community College as well as additional courses during non-peak times such as Friday and Saturday have further increased revenue streams for the University.

During the past twenty years, New Jersey has gradually reduced funding for higher education which has caused universities to become more self-reliant. Twenty years ago state appropriations amounted to 60% of Kean‘s operating budget whereas the current figure is between 20 and 22%. The economic downturn of 2008 initiated a budget crisis in most states, resulting in tax revenues lower than projected. The University has experienced significant unpredictability with state funding allocation and distribution. In March 2010, the State informed Kean of a 15% funding cut effective July 1, 2010, concurrent with notification of withholding its $2.6 million allocation to the University in May of that fiscal year. Additionally, in both 2008 and 2009, the State solicited capital projects listings from all public higher education institutions, only to abandon those efforts in May 2010. Kean‘s debt service has increased during the last decade and is comparable to that of other New Jersey public institutions. However, because debt service represents a fixed cost, it presents a challenge to the institution in this current uncertain fiscal climate. Between reductions in state revenue and increases in costs, Kean now confronts a $17 million deficit for the 2010 fiscal year. (Appendix F: Academic Affairs Reorganization Document)

Tuition and Fees Declines in state revenue have been offset, in part, by additional revenue generated through tuition and fees and the administration‘s other cost-saving measures. Tuition and fees have increased, although Kean remains one of the lowest fee structures in the State.

Fig. 3.1 Enrollment Trends Fall 06 Fall 07 Fall 08 Fall 09 Fall 10 1 Yr Change 5 Yr Change Headcount 13,050 13,394 14,203 15,051 15,939 5.90% 22.14% F.T.E. 9,451.7 9,807.5 10,421.0 11,189.8 12,014 7.37% 27.12% Undergraduate 9,990 10,441 11,240 12,072 13,052 8.12% 30.65% Graduate 3,060 2,953 2,963 2,979 2,887 -3.09% -5.65% Source: Kean University Fact Book of 2010 published by Office of Institutional Research

Fig. 3.2 Tuition and Fees Flat rate for Full-time Students Fall 06 Fall 07 Fall 08 Fall 09 Fall 10 NJ residents $4,017.75 $4,252.50 $4,589.25 $4,722.75 $4,907.25 Under- % change 7% 6% 8% 3% 4% graduates Out of State $5,431.50 $6,322.50 $6,830.25 $7,040.25 $7,701.75 % change 7% 16% 8% 3% 9% NJ residents $5,554.20 $5,883.00 $6,349.20 $6,541.20 $6,806.40 % change 7% 6% 8% 3% 4% Graduates Out of State $6,754.20 $7,551.00 $8,149.20 $8,401.20 $8,738.40 % Change 7% 12% 8% 3% 4% Source: Appendix L: IPEDS Report – Tuition and Required Fees/Office of Institutional Research

Driven by a mission of academic and economic accessibility, Kean‘s Board of Trustees and administration have opted to maintain tuition and fee structure increases lower than those of its sister institutions with a 7th out of 8th ranking. (Appendix L: Performance Indicators) It should be noted, however, that the state legislature‘s recent cap of a four percent increase in tuition and fees has limited all state universities in their attempts to benefit from this source of revenue. In view of ongoing state financial dynamics, Kean‘s conservative budgeting practices and active fiscal planning have allowed the University to thrive even in these challenging economic times.

Changing Demographics As early as 2003, the incoming President noted the increasing number of New Jersey high school graduates (Appendix N: Strategic Focus, June 2003) and consequently identified the need to serve state residents outside our immediate area through innovative partnerships with county colleges. Migration patterns in New Jersey have demonstrated that population growth is most pronounced in the western and southern parts of the state, and Kean has responded to potential new markets by offering degrees and programs at Ocean County College and Raritan Valley County College in Somerset County. (See Chapter 8, pp. 87-90)

Additional efforts to tap into a changing demographic market were realized when the University worked collaboratively with New Jersey Transit and Union County officials in laying the groundwork for the Union Train Station that now exists across from the campus entrance.

Interaction among Four-Year and Two-Year Colleges In September 2007 the New Jersey legislature passed, and Governor Corzine signed, the Lampitt Bill (Appendix O) on the transfer process for NJ residents moving from two-year community colleges to New Jersey‘s four-year public colleges and universities. As one of twelve senior-level public institutions of

higher education to which the transfer agreement applies, approximately 75% of Kean‘s transfer students transition from a two-year community college with the overall transfer cohort comprising about 49% of total undergraduate student enrollment. This figure has far-reaching implications for student retention rates, support services, and departmental advisement approaches.

Coordination of University-Wide Planning

Many of the goals outlined in the 2007-2012 Strategic Plan have been addressed, but coordination of the planning components has not been emphasized.

The 2007-2012 Strategic Plan‘s outline for ongoing campus-wide responses to its ten goals appears to have lost momentum, possibly due to the numerous personnel changes that have occurred at the Provost‘s, deans‘ and department chairs‘ levels. One serious consequence of the lapse in planning activity is the absence of systematic data for the majority of units on campus and the resulting inability to engage in institutional assessment.

There are concerns about the limited opportunities for individual departments to contribute to long range planning. The five-year cycle of program review (Appendix M: Program Review Guidelines; Document 3.1: Program Review Schedule 2004-2010) has not been active for four years, and the required end-of-year activity reports (Appendix P: Department/Academic Unit Annual Report Template) for individual departments and faculty do not link with the goals and objectives of the Strategic Plan. Noting the separation of departments from overall planning, the MSCHE Steering Committee and the University Planning Council developed a new template (cited above) for end-of-year department/unit reports and accompanying departmental data sets that will allow for reflective planning.

Improving the interface between planning and budget will further support the coordination of university- wide planning at Kean. Budgetary concerns, based as they are on state subsidies, student tuition and fees, and the ever increasing cost of faculty salaries/benefits and maintenance/improvement of University facilities, must be closely coordinated with the overall Strategic Plan and especially with Objective V: Attracting and Retaining Faculty-Scholars. For the past three years, the University has provided housing subsidies to new faculty relocating to New Jersey, and the Board has recently approved funding for faculty housing on the East Campus. Kean's percentage of full-time faculty teaching course sections has declined during the University‘s growth period. The situation reflects budgetary challenges and is a prime indicator that the planning process itself is in large measure budget-driven.

As this document is being revised, the administrative reorganization of Academic Affairs is underway. In his proposal about this change, the Interim VPAA states, ―This process [reorganization] began last year, deriving from academic, managerial as well as financial concerns. Since then, the fiscal circumstances of the state having further deteriorated, necessitating additional cost savings at the University.‖ The rationale for change emphasizes four major points: 1) the need for Academic Affairs to operate on a twelve-month basis; 2) the need for improvement of student outcomes; 3) the need to increase student enrollment; and 4) budgetary concerns.

Resource Allocation

The University weighs several internal and external factors when determining the allocation of resources. With implementation of the plan to reorganize Academic Affairs underway, the University community anticipates the re-allocation of resources, both human and financial, though no information on the topic is available at this time. University resources are discussed in greater detail in subsequent sections of this chapter. It is important to acknowledge how and what determines the allocation process, rather than what these resources are.

Allocation of Human Resources The following chart illustrates how resources are distributed across university personnel categories. The total number of employees has dropped by 59 for a 5% net loss in workforce over the five-year period. It is vital to note that despite strategic goals to increase the number of resident faculty, this figure shows 27 fewer faculty in fall 2010 than in fall 2006.

Fig. 3.3 Full-Time Employee by Category Emptype IPEDSCat FA 06 FA 07 FA 08 FA 09 FA 10 Faculty Faculty 370 375 368 352 343 Staff Manager 157 160 165 165 150 Staff Professional 204 192 200 203 198 Staff Technical 66 71 78 82 82 Staff Clerk 158 159 156 153 139 Staff Craftsman 44 44 43 44 45 Staff Maintenance 156 153 153 148 138 Total 1155 1154 1163 1147 1095 Source: Office of Institutional Research

The number of full time faculty has declined from 370 in fall 2006 to 343 in fall 2010. Refer to Fig. 6.1 for further detail. A more detailed descriptive analysis of these data will be presented in commentary about Standard 3 in this Chapter.

Allocation of Financial Resources Revenue Sources The University continues to identify new sources of revenue, although the primary sources continue to be student tuition and fees and decreasingly state funding.

1) State Funding Twenty years ago, state appropriations amounted to 60% of Kean‘s operating budget. Currently, the figure is between 20 and 22 percent. The national economic downturn of 2008 initiated a budget crisis in most states and resulted in lower tax revenues than projected. As a result, the University experienced a $2.6 million cut in state subsidies for the 2010 fiscal year and now faces a $6.6 million cut for the 2011 fiscal year. Between reductions in state revenue and increased costs, Kean confronted a $17 million deficit for the 2010 fiscal year. (Appendix F: Academic Affairs Reorganization Document)

2) Tuition and Fees Revenue from increased enrollments have compensated for declines in state funding. As Figures 3.1 and 3.2 (p. 17) show, enrollment figures have increased by 22.14% over 5 years. Tuition and fees increased a total of 18% for undergraduate and graduate in-state residents over a 3 year period (fall 2006-fall 2009) and have increased 30% for out-of-state undergraduate students and 24% for out-of-state graduate students over the same period. These increases have also occurred at our sister institutions, yet Kean retains one of the lowest tuitions in the sector. The proposed budget for FY 2011 includes a cap of 4% on our tuition and fees, which now account for 86% of our operational revenue. (Appendix F: Academic Affairs Reorganization Document)

3) Partnerships with Community Colleges Kean has responded to the state population migration patterns that show growth as most pronounced in the Western and Southern parts of the state. The University now offers degree programs at Raritan Valley Community College in Somerset County and Ocean County College. Kean Ocean provides a $2.5 million revenue stream. Additional information about two year college partnerships is in Chapter 8, pp. 87-90.

4) Institutional Advancement: The Division of Institutional Advancement recognizes the increased needs for private financial support, and fundraising efforts have proven successful. Among these is the capital campaign that recently raised more than $30 million from private philanthropic sources and government grants toward a campus-wide $350 million investment. Entitled Transforming Lives: the Campaign for Kean University, the effort focused on raising funds for four distinct sectors of University life: Centers of Excellence, Student Empowerment, Educator Investment, and Capital Resources. As a result of the campaign, the University‘s endowment has grown to $11 million, and scholarships to students have increased significantly. Approximately 300 scholarship awards were awarded, for an approximate total of $500,000. Additional outcomes of the capital campaign include $800,000 for library improvements.

5) The Office of Research and Sponsored Programs: The Office of Research and Sponsored Programs (ORSP) provides leadership and assistance in all areas of external grant funding to the Kean University community. For the 2009-2010 academic year, ORSP worked with faculty on 137 proposals equaling more than $33 million to external funders. $2.9 million was awarded for new projects, and this represents an increase of $1.5 million over the 2008-2009 academic year. (Additional discussion, pp. 63-65.)

Distribution of Revenue Given continued state appropriation decreases and imposed tuition caps, and the sluggish economic outlook, the University‘s budgeting flexibility has become constrained. A FY 2010 budget review reveals that the following expenditure categories represent approximately 86% of the total operating budget.

Fig. 3.4 Expenditures (FY 2010) Allocated Expenditure Category Amount Salaries 92,261,000 Materials /Supplies & Services 25,528,000 Debt Service 10,180,000 Total 127,969,000 Source: Audited Financial Statement

The Division of Academic Affairs has slightly over half of total operating budget.

Fig. 3.5 Comparison of Academic Affairs Expenditures to Total Budget FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 Academic Affairs $72,682,674 $75,737,959 $80,999,485 $84,903,851 $86,008,166 All Others $67,283,018 $68,847,979 $76,419,963 $80,792,225 $77,789,661 Total $139,965,692 $144,585,938 $157,419,448 $165,696,076 $163,797,827 Academic Affairs % 51.93% 52.38% 51.45% 51.24% 52.51% Source: Office of Budget

Institutional Renewal

Environmental Scans Since the late 1990s when Kean revitalized strategic planning, the University has routinely conducted environmental scans to monitor external trends and account for them in all planning activity. Since that time, environmental scans of economic, socio-political, educational, demographic, and technological factors have continued to inform strategic planning, guiding institutional renewal in the process.

Over the past five years, the environmental scans have pointed to a variety of conditions: reductions in funding over the long term; the anticipated doubling of the number of multiracial state residents; the aforementioned migration patterns in the state; employment opportunities in service fields; increased demand for online learning; and increased competition for first-time full-time freshmen from the two-year colleges. Analysis of the aforementioned and a number of other factors have sharpened the University‘s perspectives and led to institutional growth across many areas. It should be noted that the impressive list of accomplishments enumerated throughout this report were undertaken and implemented during an economic downturn, state-wide demographic shift, and ever-changing 21st century demands on the education and technology forefronts.

The Physical Plant Most tangible among the University‘s improvements is the numerous enhancements to the physical plant. For complete discussion, refer to Chapter 1 (pp. 5-6).

Programmatic Development Some of the more notable programmatic developments undertaken in the past ten years include Kean‘s partnership with an additional site in Ocean County, the doctoral programs, the Global MBA, numerous programs catering to the 21st Century job market, such as the B. S. in Sustainability Science, the Center for Innovation and Technology, the Center for Student Leadership, and Premiere Stages. A complete accounting of new academic programs can be found in Chapter 7.

Technology Initiatives Technology initiatives, such as the creation of a wireless environment, the wiring of ‗smart and enhanced‘ classrooms, laptops for new faculty accompanied by replacement of aging computers for remaining faculty, laptops for selected groups of incoming students, and implementation of Kean Apps and Google Documents, have been implemented and are found campus-wide. A full discussion follows in Standard 3.

Institutional Fundraising Dramatic advancements have been accomplished in the institution‘s ability to identify and pursue untapped resources in the fundraising arena previously described in this chapter.

Kean University complies with Standard 2. Detailed Strengths, Challenges, and Recommendations for this Standard are listed in Appendix A, p. A-2

Standard 3: Institutional Resources Human Resources

The Office of Institutional Research, the Office of Human Resources, Institutional Advancement, the Library, Campus Planning, and the Office of Computer and Information Services provided data for this area of review through both reports and interviews.

In fall 2010, 1,095 full-time employees, including 343 resident faculty, served the University. Additionally, 1,000 adjunct faculty, and 24 part-time faculty round out the work force, and a number of temporary employees, such as Academic Specialists, are employed periodically to serve in professional capacities. In total, Kean University‘s full-time faculty and staff are its most important, most diverse, and most valuable resource. Yet, a number of these characteristics of the workforce present challenges as well as insights to the University for the purposes of planning in the years ahead. Although the overall number of Kean‘s adjunct faculty is at an all-time high, 57% of them have been at the institution five or more years, showing stability in the instructional work force.

The Office of Institutional Research maintains data on the characteristics of full-time employees and adjunct faculty population (http://ir.kean.edu/irhome/Employee/EmpProfile/Emprofile.asp). In view of the University‘s mission, the diversity of full-time employees is an attractive feature, one that links the composition of the student population with that of the staff. Fig. 3.6 below presents five-year trends in staff diversity: Fig. 3.6 Full-Time Employee by Race/Ethnicity Race/Ethnicity 06/FA 07/FA 08/FA 09/FA 10/FA Hispanic 31 30 29 26 25 Asian 28 38 40 39 39 Faculty Black 41 40 38 34 33 White 268 265 260 252 245 Not Available 2 2 1 1 1 Total 370 375 368 352 343 Hispanic 182 176 183 181 170 Am. Indian/Alaskan 2 2 2 1 1 Asian 37 42 44 42 43 Staff Black 203 201 198 203 191 White 358 357 365 363 340 Multi-Race 2 5 Not Available 3 1 3 3 2 Total 785 779 795 795 752 Hispanic 213 206 212 207 195 Am. Indian/Alaskan 2 2 2 1 1 Asian 65 80 84 81 82 All Black 244 241 236 237 224 White 626 622 625 615 585 Multi-Race 2 5 Not Available 5 3 4 4 3 Total 1155 1154 1163 1147 1095 Source: Office of Institutional Research

The age of the workforce, as presented in Fig. 3.7, is also diverse, showing a population representative of the life span. This particular data holds meaning for the University relative to planning and resources as it allows for predictions about turnover, possible vacancies, and, subsequently, staffing needs.

Fig. 3.7 Full-Time Employee by Age Age Grp 06/FA 07/FA 08/FA 09/FA 10/FA Faculty <30 2 1 1 2 2 30-39 39 46 47 35 32 40-49 65 77 67 69 69 50-59 118 104 100 91 90 60-69 121 122 123 121 119 70+ 25 25 30 34 31 Total 370 375 368 352 343 Staff <30 90 92 93 93 77 30-39 153 144 155 155 149 40-49 200 202 193 192 186 50-59 231 223 234 211 202 60-69 89 96 101 123 118 70+ 22 22 19 21 20 Total 785 779 795 795 752 All <30 92 93 94 95 79 30-39 192 190 202 190 181 40-49 265 279 260 261 255 50-59 349 327 334 302 292 60-69 210 218 224 244 237 70+ 47 47 49 55 51 Total 1155 1154 1163 1147 1095 Data Source: Office of Institutional Research

All Kean employees, full-time, adjunct, and part-time, enjoy opportunities to participate in training and professional development provided by a range of programs and offices, such as Human Resources, Center for Professional Development, Office of Computer Information and Services, Center for Innovative Education and the Office of the President (Emergency Management). The latter is required, as are the sessions for faculty on advisement and related topics. Detailed information about training and professional development for full-time faculty, especially new tenure-track faculty, can be found in Chapter 6.

Financial Resources

The decrease in public financial support at the state level is profound yet has been partially offset by efforts of the Division of Institutional Advancement, specifically the initiatives of the Kean University Foundation and the ORSP. The reduction has nonetheless impacted the capital and financial operating processes. Because state funding over the long term remains uncertain and unstable, the University administration has chosen to pursue those strategic priorities that provide the greatest possibility for future growth and funding.

In a series of interviews with the Steering Committee and members of the Working Group, the Executive Vice President for Operations reported that the University is financially sound, despite the depleting state appropriations. The most recent state appropriations for the University totaled $36 million annually. (Document 3.2: KU Annual Budget) Given the current context, the Executive Vice President of Operations views the annual process of creating the University budget as ―complex, fluid and variable.‖

The University remains proactive in all financial considerations. The University‘s mission emphasizes academics and access, and these core components ultimately drive the budget process. At all times, the

Board of Trustees and administration aim to preserve the fee structure with the lowest tuition increases possible, a practice that sharply contrasts those of our sister institutions. Second, budgetary approaches continue to be conservative and involve over-estimating expenditures and under-estimating revenues. And, finally, Kean University works to utilize facilities efficiently through a scheduling structure that has increased weekend and evening enrollments.

Revenue Student revenue typically accounts for approximately half of the total revenue. Over the last three years the student revenue has consistently increased, and in 2009 it exceeded $100 million for the first time.

Fig. 3.8 Total Revenue (dollars in thousands) Year Ended in June 30 2007 2008 2009 Student revenue, net 86,663 97,461 104,117 Operating Grants and Contracts 27,271 26,563 30,409 Revenue Other 3,223 3,843 9,309

Total Revenue 117,157 127,867 143,835 State appropriation/paid fringe benefits 59,963 66,685 65,087 Non Private gift, Investment Income and other 1,209 (2,396) (8,512) Operating Revenue Total Non Operating Revenue 61,172 64,289 56,575 Total Revenue: 178,329 192,156 200,410 Source: Document 3.3: Audited Financial Statement, June, 2009

This increasing trend in revenue reflects the University‘s heightened enrollments over the last three years as shown earlier in Fig. 3.1. It should be noted that tuition and fees have increased steadily over these years, yet all changes have remained at or below the state mandated cap of 8% (see table below). Growth in FTE came primarily from the success of Kean Ocean programs as enrollment at Kean Ocean has grown steadily to over 1,200 students (over 600 FTE‘s) for fall 2009 (p. 4).

Expenditures As per the audited financial statement, operating expenses for year 2009 increased by approximately $11.9 million from previous years, primarily due to the increase in instructional expenses of $3.3 million (mainly salary, benefits, and related expenses); operation and maintenance of the physical plant (primarily costs associated with building and ground improvements as well as snow removal) expenses of $4.8 million; scholarship and fellowships of $90 thousand; and auxiliary expenses of $2.0 million. However, the trends reported here have stabilized over the last three years. The University‘s sole non-operational expense was interest expenditures, which increased by almost $2 million in 2009.

Assets Net assets increased approximately $5.6 million during fiscal year 2009. Capital assets have increased substantially over the years due primarily to construction and renovations, but the net assets (net of related debt) declined in 2009 due to increased debt for refunding (that exceeded the debt replaced) to finance the bond issuance costs and interest rate swap termination fees. Restricted net assets, those that cannot be utilized for general academic/student programs, increased consistently over the course of the last three years due to reserves for refinancing related costs. The cost of construction in progress has increased by a factor of nearly 3 since 2008 and by a factor of nearly 5 since 2007. In the 2009 fiscal year, Kean University had $335.9 million (net of accumulated depreciation) in capital assets construction in progress. The following presents a statement of construction in progress:

Fig 3.9 Assets Table (dollars in thousands) June 30 2008 2009 Construction in progress 50,923 161,790 Land 9,123 9,123 Land Improvements 14,655 14,886 Buildings Improvement 140,808 136,324 Equipment 4,672 5,621 Infrastructure 8,462 8,204 Subtotal 177,720 174,158 Total Construction in progress 228,643 335,948 Source: Document 3.3: Audited Financial Statement, June, 2009

In the years of 2008 to 2010, the University completed construction of two residence halls, the Human Rights Institute, and renovations at various sites including the entire East Campus, which houses the Graduate College. The Center for Science, Technology and Mathematics facility opened in summer 2010.

The University has maintained a steady level of cash and cash equivalents over the last two years with above $60 million. The trend of this level could not be measured as multi-year data are not available.

Debt Service Kean University had $331.4 million in outstanding debt as of June 30, 2009. Compared with 2007, this total loan obligation has decreased by approximately $3 million. Fig. 3.10 below presents the outstanding debt at the end of June 30 for the last three years.

Fig. 3.10 Debts Table (dollars in thousands) 2007 2008 2009 EFA Bonds 320,525 319,675 341,770 Lease Obligation 7,332 6,723 6,131 Notes Payable 963 856 749 Unamortized Premium(discount) 7,968 7,736 2,756 Deferred loss on refinancing debt (2,182) (2,109) (20,016) Total 334,606 332,881 331,390 Source: Document 3.3: Audited Financial Statement, June, 2009

During 2009, the University reduced $157,984 bonds payable and added $179,380. (Refer to page 29 of Document 3.3: Audited Financial Statement) The refunding of Series 2009A resulted in an unexpected deferred loss of $20.031 million dollars (the difference between the reacquisition price and the net carrying amount of older debt of which only $2.124 million was reduced during the year, making the net $20.016 million).

The overall total outstanding debt for the last three years remained steady with a slight decreasing trend, which shows the University‘s ability to reduce debt obligation steadily. The University made payments of almost $17 million dollars ($15 million interest and 2 million as principal) in 2009, which was almost double that paid the previous year ($9.7 million in 2008). Moody‘s bond rating report of 2009 (Moody‟s Investor‟s Services, Jun 10, 2009) and Standard and Poor‘s (Document 3.4: S&P Ratings Direct, June 9, 2009) provide evidence of the University‘s ability to maintain its debt service situation every year.

Kean‘s debt is consistent with the norm for the state colleges and universities of New Jersey. Item #10 in the ―Twelve Critical Facts About State Colleges and Universities‖ in the NJ State College/University Accountability Source Book of 2010 (Appendix D) states, ―New Jersey state colleges and universities have among the highest debt service in the nation—yet high bond rating; and bond agencies find the debt to be well managed. Bond raters‘ biggest concern is state regulation that could turn back the clock on

responsible enrollment and financial policy set by boards of trustees.‖ The same report also notes the lack of support for higher education capital projects, and, as a result, universities borrow money to overcome this policy shortcoming. (Appendix D: Accountability Sourcebook 2010, p. 32)

As per NJASCU Source Book of March 2009, the peer comparison of Debt Services (as of April 18, 2008) of sister universities reveals a promising outlook for Kean University. By borrowing to re-build the campus for the future, Kean is able to maintain one of the lowest tuition and fee structures and one of the highest student FTE‘s. (see Fig. 3.11 and 3.12 below)

Fig. 3.11 Debt Comparison Across State Universities Student FTE Debt Services Total Tuition & Fees (approx. in Millions) Rowan 7,728 350 10,908 Montclair 12,197 346 9,428 TCNJ 6,224 337 12,308 Kean 9,235 327 9,197 Ramapo 4,717 252 10,765 R Stockton 6,025 161 10,569 NJCU 5,454 117 8,726 W Paterson 7,768 109 10,492 Source: Inter Office Memorandum of May 28, 2009 addressed to The Kean University Campus from the Executive Vice President and the Interim VPAA.

The University‘s debt service nonetheless presents long-term concerns as the following figure suggests.

Fig. 3.12 Payments Due on Long Term Debt (Dollars in Thousands) Year Ending June 30 Principal Interest 2011 5,923 17,754 2012 6,110 17,506 2013 8,334 17,175 2014 8,986 16,795 2015 9,423 16,388 2016-2020 54,231 74,883 2021-2025 59,462 61,607 2026-2030 71,865 45,651 2031-2035 82,860 24,613 2036-2040 49,988 4,718 Total 357,182 297,090 Source: Document 3.3: Audited Financial Statement, June 30, 2010-2009

Technology

Technology Plan Despite having achieved many of the technology goals of the 2002-2007 Strategic Plan (Appendix C), no technology master plan exists to coordinate continued technology development for all units on campus.

Three departments at Kean University support the technology resource needs of the University: the Office of Computer & Information Services (OCIS), The Center for Professional Development (CPD), and The Nancy Thompson Library. The Center for Innovative Education, a grant-based unit that delivers advanced

workshops and conferences on cutting edge technology in classroom education, also exists. Currently, no single dedicated organizational unit is responsible for managing the University‘s academically-focused technology. Academic technology efforts in individual academic departments are handled in different ways, with some departments having support personnel on staff and others lacking in-house support of any type. It should be noted that an additional state-of-the-art technology, the Campus Alert System, which operates out of Campus Safety, functions outside the three structures mentioned above.

Office of Computer and Information Services OCIS is the office responsible for maintaining the University‘s vast technological infrastructure and, as such, has experienced many successes in the past five years: establishing and maintaining 82 smart classrooms, 54 campus labs housing 1,201 computers, and supporting 343 faculty with PCs or laptops. OCIS supported Kean‘s transition from WebCT to Blackboard in 2005, executed a major software version upgrade in 2008, revamped the information/support system for distance education, introduced video tutorials, and produced integration with the Datatel/Colleague system to automatically generate user account creation, registration, de-registration, and course shell creation. Recently, Kean Apps and Goggle Docs were introduced to the campus community. The role of OCIS also supports the academic computing system, Datatel, and its web-based platform, KeanWise, and to that end, provides the cross-training of faculty in its usage. In rounding out OCIS‘s commitment in supporting the campus-wide community, the staff provide conference support and live broadcasting and webcasting.

Following an interview with OCIS staff as part of the self-study process, the Steering Committee noted concerns about the unit‘s organizational structure and lack of a stated mission, goals and objectives. From the interview the Steering Committee learned that the Office does not have a replacement plan for existing computers, and does not collect consumer-satisfaction data on its Helpdesk/Network unit, which handles over 4,500 computer hardware/software/network related issues per year. Development of a comprehensive technology strategic plan with resources allocated to support that plan will keep the campus community at the forefront of an ever-increasingly complex high-tech society.

Center for Professional Development CPD provides faculty and staff training on widely used software suites, support for website creation, services for Print/Digital Design production, and loaner laptop services to faculty. Training topics include Microsoft Office Suite, TurnItIn.com, website creation and maintenance using Frontpage, and Google Apps. The unit promotes sharing ideas on the use of ―Technology in the Classroom‖ through new faculty orientation, training workshops and teaching related seminars.

Physical Resources

Facilities Master Plan In an interview with the MSCHE Steering Committee, the former Vice President for Institutional Planning explained that the University plans to support new construction and renovations by doubling the number of students residing on campus with new residence halls in the place of the campus school buildings. Currently, the Office of Campus Planning is evaluating space utilization and energy usage as a cost-savings initiative. The University has also undertaken a Sustainability Composting Project and is developing renovation initiatives for the aging residence halls built originally in the 1960s and early 1970s.

Library

The mission of the Nancy Thompson Library is to actively support learning, teaching and research at the University and to extend the resources and services through collaborations with other libraries.

Library Services Nancy Thompson Library houses the Library‘s print, media, and online collections and has more than 34,500 periodicals, a majority of which are available online through the Library's databases. Services include electronic reserves, support for End Note Web services, and a bibliography and reference citation manager through the University's subscription to Web of Science. The library houses a student technology laboratory equipped with 40 Dell computers and two printers.

A Changing Role Over the last five years, the library has changed structurally, operationally, and functionally. Librarians and professional staff are more involved in library decision making, and they teach classes in the library‘s information literacy/instruction program. Support staff who work with the public are now cross-trained to staff the circulation and information desk. The library is now responsible for the student technology lab it houses. The library has increased its interactions with colleges, schools, academic departments and other units on campus, transformed its function as a study center for students, and carried out its role as an intellectual and cultural center by increasing the number of programs it sponsors.

Library Planning Prior to the addition of a new wing to the library, the facility existed as a 69,532 square foot three story building housing the Center for Professional Development, the Holocaust Resource Center, the Wynona Lipman Ethnic Studies Center, and a distance learning classroom in addition to library collections and services. The 12,000 square foot addition added a two story Institute for Human Rights and a 3,590 foot grand study, creating a more attractive exterior, new entrance, and third floor quiet study area. For fall 2010, the conversion of the first-floor library entrance into a full-service Starbucks and late-night study area was completed. Office space currently used by the library will be converted to group study rooms.

In Fiscal Year 2008, the library increased departmental book allocations 25% and expects to maintain that level for the next few years. The library will reallocate resources to support academic initiatives—the doctoral programs, academic reorganizations, new programs, and expectations for faculty and student research. Access to electronic resources will be pursued more aggressively. Collection levels and circulation and usage statistics will be analyzed to ensure that books and other resources are purchased where needed. Standard collection management includes on-going, judicious weeding, which saves shelf space and keeps collections current.

Kean University complies with Standard 3. Detailed Strengths, Challenges, and Recommendations for this Standard are listed in Appendix A, p. A-3.

CHAPTER 4 LEADERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE (STANDARD 4), ADMINISTRATION (STANDARD 5) AND INTEGRITY (STANDARD 6)

The Kean University Board of Trustees is the independent governing body with responsibility for establishing the University‘s mission and ensuring it is carried out by all constituencies. Members are appointed by the State Governor and confirmed by the State Senate for six-year terms, and the Board, in turn, appoints and directs the University President. A student member is elected to the Board by the student body, providing a unique student view and assessment of the University to other Board members. Elected officers of Kean University's Student Organization frequently meet with the University President on matters such as tuition, student life, and academic offerings. Student leadership on campus is a strong point for the Kean community.

Various collective bargaining units are also involved in the leadership and governance of the University. Each unit represents a group of employees, is the exclusive bargaining agents for its membership, and is discussed in this chapter to varying degrees. Among these units is the Kean Federation of Teachers (KFT), which represents the full-time faculty. A history of conflict exists between the KFT and the University administration, and recent changes in the operations of the University with regard to faculty, to include the approved reorganization plan, have heightened the discord, making it an issue of prominence during the self-study process. Kean is a vibrant institution that fulfills its mission while managing challenges in the areas of governance, administration, and integrity. This chapter addresses these, offering recommendations for improvement.

Standard 4: Leadership and Governance

Primary data sources for this section include the New Jersey Higher Education Re-Structuring Act as well as internal documents, all of which delineate the roles and responsibilities of individuals and committees central to governance at the University.

Several organizational bodies are charged with governance responsibilities, often with overlapping responsibilities, and work to accomplish the University's mission. The recent reorganization (Appendix F: Academic Affairs Reorganization Document) of the University's operations and academic configuration was met with a variety of responses, although widespread concerns focused on the lack of consultation with all campus constituents prior to development and distribution of the plan. Nevertheless, the ongoing campus-wide debates across all governing bodies and the university community at large reveal nothing but the deepest regard for students as well as the overall operation and future of the University.

Kean University Board of Trustees The Higher Education Restructuring Act of 1994 (Document 4.1) established a higher education governance structure of 1) public institutional governing boards (Board of Trustees); 2) Commission on Higher Education; and 3) New Jersey President‘s Council. The Act‘s governance structure gives public institutions greater autonomy for the purpose of creativity, innovation, decision-making and accountability at the institutional level. The Kean University Board of Trustees is responsible for institutional policy and planning, student tuition and fees, admissions criteria and limits, degree requirements, investment of institutional funds, legal affairs, budget funding requests for state support, academic programs, personnel decisions, and initiatives for physical improvements to University facilities. (Refer to http://www.state.nj.us/highereducation/ for additional information.)

According to its bylaws, the overall purpose of the Board of Trustees is to serve the interest of the public at large, ―representing as it does the public interest and Kean University's mission on behalf of that public interest, rather than any particular constituency of the University.‖ The Board approves changes to the institutional mission and curricular requirements for academic programs and degrees; oversees legal affairs, fiscal, personal policies and operations; and is obligated to ―avoid participation in the administration of policy.‖ With the exception of the University President, the members of the Board may act on matters of individual personnel only upon the President‘s recommendation. The Board of Trustees is responsible for oversight of and participation in institutional fund-raising. The Board communicates with the public through the Office of Media and Publications and with the university community through the University‘s President. Communications by the university community and the public to the Board occur at public meetings through a formal notification process; minutes are published on the Board's website. (Complete information about the charge to and reports from various Trustees and board committee structures is available at Board of Trustees website: http://www.kean.edu/boardoftrustee/board_of_trustee.htm.)

Leadership Kean University‘s administrative structure consists of the University President, Executive Vice President for Operations, Vice President for Academic Affairs (currently an interim appointment since 2008 AY), Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs, two Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs, Vice President for Student Affairs, Vice President of Institutional Advancement and Research, Deans for the six colleges, and the Director of Nancy Thompson Library. Complete information about the roles and responsibilities of University executives is available at Office of Accreditation and Assessment. (Document 4.2: Duties of Executive Staff)

Self-Governance Bodies Faculty Senate: According to its Constitution, revised May 2010 and currently under review by the University President (Document 4.3: Faculty Senate Constitution), the Faculty Senate (the Senate) serves as an elected body and principal agent of the faculty in University governance. The Senate participates in the formulation and approval of academic policies within the University and recommends changes to academic programs to the President, who then makes recommendations to the Board of Trustees for final action. The Senate also considers issues brought to its attention by the Board of Trustees, the University President, faculty, the student body, and other university community constituents. The Senate provides a forum for University community members to bring issues of concern to the administration. Several standing committees are charged with specific duties in support of the role of the Senate and include the following:

Appointed Committees: Academic Standards Committee Academic Technology and Multimedia Committee Admissions Committee Campus Culture Committee College Curriculum Committees Graduate Studies Committee Library Committee Nominations Committee Research Committee Student Retention Committee

Elected Committees: University Appeals General Education Committee University Curriculum Committee Distance Learning Curriculum Committee Writing Emphasis Committee Assessment Committee (effective fall 2010) College Curriculum Committees (dept. elections)

The Senate is composed of 30 representatives elected from the full-time faculty, full-time librarians, full- time professional staff, and non-academic unit managers and administrators. The KFT does not have a designated seat on the Senate although KFT members by virtue of their positions as resident faculty, librarians, or professional staff can seek election to the Senate. Kean University‘s commitment to a

student-centered focus enables student participation in the University‘s governance structures, including membership on all Faculty Senate standing committees.

Each year, ten members of the campus community are elected to the Senate for three-year terms. The current members were elected in 2008, 2009, and 2010. There are 17 male senators and 13 female senators. There are 2 African-Americans (7%), 5 Hispanic (17%), 23 Caucasians (73%) and 1 Asian/Pacific Islander (3%). Issues exist about diversity in the Faculty Senate relative to that of the campus community and all constituencies the body represents. Complete information about the charge to and reports from various committees of the Faculty Senate is available at the Faculty Senate website: http://www.kean.edu/~senate/.

While the Senate has been proactive and fulfilled its constitutional role in the governance of academic programming and the formulation of academic policies, its role in the academic organization in delivering such has been more reactive. Changes to the University‘s academic department structure over the past two years, especially the consolidation of departments and the widespread initiation of schools to replace current academic departments, have been a source of contention among some senators. In a focus group conducted by the MSCHE Steering Committee on February 10, 2010 (Document 4.4), some senators expressed concern that the routing of the spring 2009 reorganization document compromised the constitutional authority of the Senate. While the Senate was advised of the proposed changes to the academic structure of the University, they were given only ex-post-facto notification and limited input during later revisions to the plan. Many senators felt that consultation throughout the development and review process would have been more appropriate. Another issue senators addressed during the focus session was communication with other governing agents within the University. Opinions on the topic varied to a degree, but evidence clearly indicates that the Senate is not actively involved in open communication with other governing bodies outside their meeting times.

The aforementioned trend resurfaced again during the most recent academic reorganization in April 2010. The document was presented to the campus community with the Senate being placed in a ‗limited‘ reactive mode with only 30 days to solicit input, hold open fora, and promulgate recommendations for the President. Subsequently, during fall 2010, the Senate has been deeply involved with constituent concern over numerous unresolved issues resulting from the implementation of the 2010 reorganization.

Kean Federation of Teachers The KFT, the full-time faculty bargaining unit, negotiates with the State as the legal representative of faculty, professional staff, and librarians. (Document 4.5: KFT Contractual agreement 2007-2011) KFT represents its constituencies in matters related to terms and conditions of employment at the institution according to the current master agreement and 120+ locally-negotiated Letters of Agreement (LOA). Personnel represented by the KFT include full-time and part-time faculty, department chairpersons, (non- managerial), administrative staff, librarians, and student personnel staff.

Members of the MSCHE Steering Committee met with the KFT in an interview format on April 20, 2010. The union was represented by its president and several members of the executive board. Their concerns included the following topics: labor-management relations; consultation on decisions about academic areas of the institution, such as the reorganization of academic affairs; and non-negotiated policy and procedural changes. Additional concerns referenced were schedule changes, reductions in the number of faculty research awards, and what is perceived as a steady erosion of faculty governance role at the University. (A copy of the agenda and topics for the interview are available in the Office of Accreditation and Assessment library.) The critical area of concern from the union was their feeling that the current administration does not negotiate and discuss in "good faith". An additional issue raised at the interview was the widening gap between the numbers of full-time faculty and adjunct faculty, which is discussed in Chapter 6.

The union cites the number of Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) it files as evidence of a breakdown in labor- management relations. The following table of ULP activity and resolution over the past five years offers perspective on the topic.

Fig. 4.1 Unfair Labor Practice Filings Outcomes Arbitration Unions Year N/Held Settled Step 1 N/Heard Yes Pend. No Total 2005 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 2006 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 Sister 2007 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 12 Institutions 2008 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 2009 0 1 4 0 1 2 2 2005 0 3 5 1 5 0 4 2006 0 2 4 1 3 0 4 KFT 2007 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 22 2008 0 1 3 0 2 0 2 2009 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 KUAFF 2005 1 1 1 1 0 0 4 4 Source: Human Resources Kean University

The nature of the discourse between the collective bargaining unit and the administration at Kean has a long and varied history, and the tenor of all conversations has escalated at this time. The University administration regards the number of grievances and Unfair Labor Practice filings as excessive and unnecessary, referencing negotiation as the appropriate initial venue for addressing differences. The status of the overall situation is that a substantial gap in positions exists between the administration and the union. Document 4.6 presents Correspondence from the Kean Federation of Teachers (2) in response to both the August 2010 and November 2010 versions of the Self Study report.

Kean University Adjunct Faculty Federation AFT Local 6024 (KUAFF) Adjunct faculty members are represented by the KUAFF, a member of the Council of New Jersey State College Locals. The adjunct unit is recognized as ―the exclusive representative for the purpose of collective negotiations for all terms and conditions of employment‖ for all adjunct faculty at Kean University. The master agreement stipulates the rights and responsibilities of adjunct faculty and those of the University. KUAFF communicates with their constituents through email. KUAFF also communicates directly with the Board of Trustees through its President at the Board of Trustees meetings

The Communication Workers of America 1031 (AFL-CIO) Employees represented by CWA 1031 include staff working under the following titles (Document 4.7): Operations, Maintenance, Service, Crafts, Security Employees, Administrative, Clerical Services, and Primary- and Higher-Level Supervisor. The primary channel of communication within CWA is reportedly email.

International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers This bargaining unit is an affiliate of the AFL-CIO, and it represents campus maintenance workers.

PBA The Police Benevolent Association represents the University‘s campus police.

There is an apparent lack of interface and true communication between the various leadership bodies and the administration. In particular, the communication disconnect between the KFT and the administration as well as the lack of consultation between the administration and the Faculty Senate on critical matters of academic programming in the last two years are areas of concern. The system and practice of information- sharing within the university community creates an atmosphere that encourages rumors and needlessly raises employees‘ anxieties and a tendency for employees to focus on their individual contexts rather than their fit within the University as a whole. In view of the University‘s dynamic nature and pace, disconnects in communication, the dissemination of information through informal channels, and the isolation of some employees, often due to an excessive workload, cause separations in the workforce—a lack of cohesion that is incompatible with overall institutional goals, especially the atmosphere of mutual respect on campus that the University‘s mission promises. Given the importance of effective communication at the University, the need exists to review all channels and loops for exchanging and disseminating information across all levels and bodies at the institution.

Kean University complies with Standard 4. Strengths, Challenges, and Recommendations for this Standard are listed in Appendix A, p. A-3.

Standard 5: Administration Introduction

Administrative documents, institutional records, procedures for performance reviews, annual reports as well as MS data collection templates, and anecdotal information provide data on this standard.

The University President serves as the institution‘s chief executive officer and is responsible for the achievement of its mission. The University has clear lines of organization, and vice presidents and deans are responsible for unique areas of the University consistent with the lines of authority. The executive staff is sufficient to ensure the orderly operation of the University, and they possess the qualifications necessary to carry out their duties and responsibilities. A positive characteristic of the executive team is the scholarly work and research of the five College Deans from 2005-2010, as depicted below:

Fig 4.2 College Deans’ Scholarly Activity FY 2005-2009 Publications 83 Grants 13 Presentations 61 Creative Activities 20 Honors & Awards 13 Proposals & Abstracts 15 Source: Office of Academic Affairs

The current organizational chart (Appendix Q) clearly displays the lines of authority and responsibility of all members of the executive staff. While roles and responsibilities of executive staff at the University are clearly delineated, a single critical factor, the high turnover rate among executive staff in the last 10 years, has impeded the consistency of management vital to the University‘s operations and forward movement.

Diversity in Administration

Kean University remains one of the most diverse institutions in the nation. (DiversityInc, 2008) Student demographics mirror those of the region, making the University a model for future trends in higher education in the United States. The ethnic composition of the executive staff does not reflect this same diversity.

According to the most recent organizational chart (Appendix Q), Kean University‘s administrative structure consists of the University President, Executive Vice President for Operations, Vice President for Academic Affairs (currently an interim appointment since 2008 AY), Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs, Associate Vice President Academic Affairs, Vice President Student Affairs, Vice President for Institutional Advancement and Research, and Deans for the College of Humanities and Social Sciences (CHSS), College of Business and Public Administration (CBPA), College of Education (COE), College of Visual and Performing Arts (CVPA), College of Natural, Applied and Health Sciences (CNAHS), Nathan Weiss Graduate College (NWGC), and the Director of Nancy Thompson Library.

One of the University‘s goals is diversity among administration, faculty, and staff. Although the senior officers (N=14) are diverse by gender (54% male and 46% female), ethnic diversity does not reflect that of the student body. Figures 4.3 and 4.4 below depict this point.

Fig 4.3 Diversity of Executive Staff FY2010 Ethnicity African American Caucasian Hispanic Asian/ Pacific Percentage 7% 84% 7% 0%

Fig. 4.4 Student Racial Composition AY2009-2010 Ethnicity African American Caucasian Hispanic Asian/Pacific Undergraduate 19.2% 46.8% 21.2% 7.6% Graduate 16.2% 62.3% 11.8% 5.7% Source: Office of Academic Affairs

Administrative Changes

Dissemination of Information to the Kean University Community Communication is a crucial facet of any organization‘s administrative functions. Based on a review of available data, current of channels of communication within the University include the Kean website (www.kean.edu); Kean News; Kean Focus; Kean Magazine; periodic email blast announcements; scheduled open fora on tuition, employee benefits or campus safety; the President‘s Opening Day Address and Deans‘ meetings with chairs that take place at the beginning of each academic year (fall semester); email to students; and the Campus Alert system.

While several mechanisms for communication are in place, the majority are events-oriented and do not provide the information faculty/staff require, such as policy and staff changes, to carry out their duties. The essential tool for dissemination of critical information is the University website, which was recently redesigned to make it easier to navigate, update information, and have more effective search functions. In a six-month period in 2010, roughly 200 callers to the front desk of CAS were prospective students having difficulty navigating the website or using website functions. (Document 4.8)

Role and Duties of University Executive Officers in Contrast to Transition in These Offices

The roles and duties of the executive officers are stated in documents available in the library of the Office of Accreditation and Assessment (Document 4.2: Duties of Executive Staff). These roles and duties are particularly important, given the continuing transition of executive personnel and resulting interruptions in administration. The number of staff changes at the executive level over the last five years is a matter of grave concern. Fig. 4.5 below depicts data since the last Middle States decennial review that illustrate this point. Note that the data do not pertain to the School of Visual and Performing Arts, which was created in 2005.

Fig. 4.5 Transitions in Executive Offices Office VPAA Dean COE Dean CNAHS Dean CHSS Dean SVPA Dean NWGC Dean CBPA Turnover 5 4 5 3 2 4 4

Balancing the need for consistency in administration against the need to maintain a fresh perspective through transitions is difficult. However, the lack of readily-accessible written policies and procedures increases the difficulty of transitions. The high turnover rates experienced at Kean may be a root cause for the lack of continuity in important policies and procedures, such as program review and assessment. Stability in an organization as complex as a University is critical to orderly operation.

Kean University complies with Standard 5. Strengths, Challenges, and Recommendations pertaining to this Standard are available in Appendix A, p. A-3.

Standard 6: Integrity

Documentation in the form of annual and routine reports, Institutional Research data, MS data collection templates, and interview data for the topics in this Standard (e.g., guide sheets, transfer legislation, the Center for Academic Success, Research Compliance, and Financial Aid) serve as the primary source of information.

Integrity encompasses many, if not most, of the standards for accreditation; it is the cornerstone for academic work in a university as well as the evaluation of policies and procedures. To this end, there are several key areas at Kean that have evolved over the last five years and are important to highlight. Among these areas is uniform acceptance of transfer credit from New Jersey community colleges, articulation agreements, degree audits, and research in this era of transition to a teacher-scholar model.

One challenge noted in this chapter is that the criteria for faculty tenure and promotion remains an issue in need of clarification. Although much is written about the process of tenure and promotion, specific requirements remain unclear and ill-defined. More formal, written criteria concerning the requirements to obtain both tenure and promotion would help to assure fair and equitable treatment of all faculty.

Research Integrity In conjunction with the new emphasis on and thus increased faculty and student research, the Institutional Review Board (IRB) has undergone a significant change in the past five years. The IRB functions within the structure of the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs (ORSP), which has primary responsibility for research integrity compliance and the delivery of training on the responsible conduct of research and scholarship.

Within this context, IRB handles the review process for human subject research. Its web page contains comprehensive instructions for completing applications, an on-line tutorial of the process and purpose of the review as well as the issues required for inclusion for research proposals. All applicants must complete a web-based tutorial on the protection of human subjects offered as an educational service by the National Institute of Health (http://phrp.nihtraining.com/users/login.php) and obtain a Certificate of Tutorial Completion for attachment to all requests to the IRB. An administrator oversees the Board and manages the flow of applications to the IRB, assuring timely review, expediting applications and distributing the workload evenly.

The IRB has undergone expansion in the past three years and consists of three separate review committees, each with a co-chair, that meet on a rotating basis three times annually (9 sessions through the academic year) and two summer sessions. Each panel co-chair reads all full applications and several expedited applications. IRB restructuring has increased members‘ attendance and participation and made the review of applications more thorough. Fig. 4.6 below offers a four-year summary of the applications processed by the IRB. Also, the IRB process has been streamlined to provide feedback to applicants within 30 days and to assist faculty and students in moving their research to fruition.

Fig. 4.6 Applications Processed by IRB Academic Year Applications Processed 2006-2007 215 2007-2008 221 2008-2009 189 2009-2010 210 Source: Institutional Review Board

A related function within the ORSP is the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). This committee oversees Kean‘s animal research program, facilities, and protocols, ensuring the treatment of animals according to the highest standards of care. Comprised of individuals with expertise that responds to the requirements of the Public Health Service (PHS) Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, IACUC is responsible for: 1. Assuring that all animal-related research activities are carried out according to ethical and legal guidelines. 2. Reviewing all projects involving animals. The IACUC has the authority to require modifications, to disapprove projects involving animals, and to suspend projects. 3. Providing an educational training resource for the university community in all aspects of animal research and welfare.

Research Awards Trends in research awards pertain to both external and internal funding. Data on the former show consistent award patterns over a four-year period. 2006-07 awards totaled 51with income to the University of $8.2 million; in 2007-08, faculty received 33 grants at a dollar amount of $ 8.3 million; 41 awards totaling $7.3 million were received in 2008-2009; and the 51 awards granted in 2009-2010 resulted in $8.2 million in external support. Patterns in external funding correlate with the number of faculty applications for external grants, which has increased significantly in the past three years from 81 submissions in 2007- 2008 to 137 in 2009-2010. (http://orsp.kean.edu/grants%20management/funded_programs.html)

Internal Untenured Faculty Research Initiative (UFRI) and Release Time for Research (RTR) awards, although robust over the 5 year period, are decreasing. Additional information relative to ORSP and faculty research awards, both external and internal, is available in Chapter 6, pp. 62-65.

Degree Integrity In 2007, the State of New Jersey passed the Lampitt Law (Appendix O) to ease the transfer process from New Jersey community colleges to New Jersey four-year public colleges. The law provides for transfer of up to 60-64 credits for AA and AS degree graduates, but there are rules and regulations that may limit the transfer of credits. This law is liberally accepted at Kean and is at the center of a problem with degree integrity. The law requires that all credits earned by a student who obtains an AA or AS degree from a community college be accepted by the four-year university, with some exceptions. There can be a discrepancy, as a result, between courses taken by transfer students and native students. The situation is further complicated by the fact that the course work of transfer students from other four-year colleges and universities and community college students who did not obtain an AA or AS degree typically do not transfer as liberally. Students are treated differently based on degree awarded and transfer institution.

NJ Transfer (www.njtransfer.org) provides transfer students with a roadmap for selecting courses at community colleges that will be accepted by four-year colleges and universities. However, many community college students are not fully aware of this site and engage with it only after deciding on a transfer university. This often results in transfer students taking classes that are not germane to their major, in which case Kean chooses to creatively substitute courses unrelated to the specified requirements imposed on native students, especially in the area of General Education, as approved through the university curriculum process. Native students are rarely approved for course substitutions to fulfill Kean requirements whereas their transfer counterparts receive credits for General Education courses more liberally.

In order to meet the mandate of the law, Kean embarked on a curriculum revision process in 2008-2009. All departments revised their major curricula in an attempt to comply with the law. The General Education Committee also revised the GE requirements at that time. The process involved self-reflection by

departments concerning the degree they wanted to award (BS/BA) as well as the credits and courses needed to complete the major. The final versions can be found in the binder of guide sheets in the Library of the Office of Accreditation and Assessment.

The problem of discrepancy in program degree requirements is of particular concern at the Kean Ocean campus, an additional location discussed fully in Chapter 8, pp. 88-90. The original articulation agreements established with Kean Ocean anticipated the courses needed to complete the degrees seamlessly. Now, students are credited for classes that were not originally part of those agreements and are not part of the degree on the Union campus. As a result, OCC students, as is the case with transfers from other community colleges, receive credit for classes that would not count in native students‘ academic programs and were not anticipated originally at the location. Prior to Lampitt, degree integrity appeared to remain intact, whereas currently degree integrity can and may often be compromised.

Registrar’s Degree Audit The University Registrar is the final monitor of the University‘s degree integrity. Among other duties the registrar is responsible for assuring that student have successfully completed all degree requirements before being awarded a diploma. Kean University has three graduation dates, January, May and August. During the first semester of the senior year (usually two full semesters from graduation), students are advised that they may submit their request for a graduation audit. Known as the ―early submission‖ for graduation, the process reviews the course work students must complete in the next two terms so as not to delay graduation. The ―regular submission‖ requires the student to submit their transcripts for review in the final semester. This allows time to obtain a course waiver from the major department should discrepancies exist. Although the process accommodates some students, there is no guarantee that the student will be able to fulfill the major requirements and graduate on time. ―Late submission‖ provides students a final opportunity to have their curriculum reviewed and approved for graduation. At this point, the student who has not followed the requirements may need to postpone graduation until all requirements are completed. The registrar‘s degree audit program ensures the integrity of the degree for all students and for the University.

Faculty Tenure and Promotion The issue of equitable treatment of faculty concerning retention, tenure, and promotion falls under Standard 6. The University has publicly disseminated to all faculty the institutional shift from the faculty teacher model to the faculty teacher-scholar model. Though not highlighted, this change was in place during the last accreditation reporting period. The research design for this self study included goals to gather and document written procedures for tenure and promotion within this model to determine how well the university community understands the process and identify where requirements are stated.

New faculty are informed verbally of the expectations for tenure and promotion at several points. First, during the annual four-day new faculty orientation before the fall term begins, the Provost explains the reappointment process to the new faculty. Second, a fall workshop on how first-year faculty must prepare their initial reappointment forms takes place. Third, in the spring of the new faculty‘s first year, a workshop is offered explaining how portfolios must be prepared each of the next four years of reappointments. The University established the Tenured Track Faculty Network (TTFN) to assist new faculty in several areas. Assisting new faculty in obtaining tenure is part of that group‘s charge.

The faculty (employee) handbook, the master contract between the State of New Jersey and the State Colleges, and the Senate website contain procedural guidelines for promotion and tenure which discuss the forms to be completed and the time-line for submission. There are broad expectations stated for evidence of Mastery of the Field, Effectiveness of Teaching, Scholarly Activity, and Service; however, other than the methodology for providing transcripts of the terminal degree for Mastery of the Field, absent are the specific criteria for demonstrating that the applicant meets the expectations for tenure and promotion.

Office of Financial Aid and Student Accounting The Director of Student Financial Services was interviewed by the Middle States Steering Committee on February 9, 2010, to discuss the policies and procedures of the Offices of Financial Aid and Student Accounting. In that conversation, various procedures and practices within the Office of Student Financial Services were of concern to the group. Further detail can be found on page Chapter 5, pp. 43-44. (Document 4.9: Interview Notes,)

Academic Integrity Kean University‘s Academic Integrity Policy was revised in 2006 and distributed to the university community through hard copy and an online version. Orientation sessions for new faculty, both full-time and adjunct, include explanation and discussion of the Policy as well as access to Turnitin®. Students are given a hard copy of the policy as well as the link to the online copy during the Transition to Kean (T2K) first-year seminar course. A comprehensive document, the policy defines expectations for demonstrating academic integrity, addresses the types of violations, and outlines corresponding recommended sanctions. Instructors and Deans have broad discretion in handling matters of academic integrity violation and the documentation process is clearly outlined. More severe acts of academic dishonesty are reported to the Office of the Provost, where a record of such acts is maintained in alphabetical order by the last name of the student involved. Students can appeal to the University Appeals Board, a body formed by the Senate, for the sole purpose of hearing academic affairs appeals.

The Office of Student Conduct The Office of Student Conduct educates students regarding the community core values of the University as outlined in the Student Code of Conduct. In addition, the Office investigates complaints of violations of the Code following the guidelines of the student conduct process. Upon review, cases may be resolved, dismissed or referred to a Student Conduct Conference, a Student Conduct Hearing, or an appropriate conduct process in order to assure that the process and procedures are followed as outlined in the Code.

The Office of Student Conduct has initiated a new assessment process through the implementation of the Odyssey data management and tracking program as well as the online program Student Voice. The Office is becoming more data driven and aims to assess data generated to provide appropriate and timely outreach to the campus community. Each previous year‘s Clery statistics are accessible via The Guide, a publication produced by the Vice President for Student Affairs Office. Annual reports from the previous three years that include the number of cases adjudicated, types of incidents, and similar data are also available in the Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs.

Major changes in the last five years include a name change to reflect the administrative approach to adjudicating cases and educating students on code of behavior: Office of Student Conduct. The new data management program, Odyssey®, was installed to better track processes and assist with needs assessment, as discussed previously, and an Alcohol, Tobacco and other Drugs Task Force was created in conjunction with the Counseling Center to serve a variety of functions in the areas of prevention and intervention.

Kean University complies with Standard 6. Strengths, Challenges, and Recommendations for this Standard are listed in Appendix A, p. A-4.

CHAPTER 5 STUDENT ADMISSIONS AND RETENTION (STANDARD 8) AND STUDENT SUPPORT SERVICES (STANDARD 9)

Standard 8: Student Admissions and Retention

Institutional Research data, the 2009 IPEDS Report, Admissions reports and feedback, unit records and reports, and promotional materials constitute the primary data sources for this standard.

Student Recruitment The Office of Admissions plays a critical role in the University‘s efforts to fulfill its mission; its knowledgeable, vibrant staff, which includes Student Ambassadors who offer campus tours and other activities for visiting students, have worked diligently over the past five years to elevate Kean‘s visibility in the region. (Document 5.1: A Sampling of Recruitment Materials)

Since 2007, the Office of Undergraduate Admissions has geographically widened its outreach to Staten Island and Westchester County in New York, and Eastern Pennsylvania. The Office hosts recruitment events on campus; advertises the University through a variety of media, such as radio and newspapers; and utilizes technology and social networks, such as Facebook and Twitter, to respond quickly to inquiries from prospective students. All of these efforts have not only improved the visibility of the University, but they have also attracted a more geographically-diverse body of students applying for admission.

The Open House format held on campus has generated increased community participation in the past few years and has evolved into the University‘s most popular and successful recruitment tool. Now held during both the fall and spring terms, Open House events have transformed from an initiative of the Office of Admissions to a campus-wide occasion. Overall, the success of Open House speaks to the Office‘s ability to collaborate with other programs and units on campus, especially those connected to recruitment and admissions processes, such as Financial Aid and the Center for Academic Success.

A 2009-2010 systematic report on Open House events from the Office of Admission provides the following: ―[O]verall attendance... totaled 7,882 persons (students and parents). There were 4,400 attendees at fall 2009 events and 3,482 attendees in spring 2010.‖ (Document 5.2) Additional recruitment formats include Kean Information Day Tours, Student Visitation for a Day, and On-Site Decision Day.

Recruitment for the Graduate College has undergone change over the past two years, and revisions continue in the effort to improve contact with applicants through a team-driven approach. Currently, the four full-time Admissions Coordinators in the Graduate College make at least three initial contacts with each applicant, providing 1) acknowledgement upon receipt of an application; 2) notification if an application is complete or is missing documentation; and 3) information about admission status. Graduate student recruitment replicates the successful undergraduate Open House replete with the programmatic information provided by resident faculty who staff the event. On-site incentives such as application fee waivers, scholarship raffles, and Kean apparel are offered during each open house. In 2009- 2010, attendance increased dramatically from a typical 500 to over 1000 attendees on a given day. Kean‘s website also serves as a source of information about graduate programs.

Admissions Undergraduate admission of freshmen is based on three criteria: secondary school academic and personal records; SAT or ACT scores; and potential as a university student. Over the past five years, the average SAT scores (verbal and math combined) for regular first-time full-time freshmen have remained stable, ranging from a score of 992 (fall 2009) to a score of 1000 (fall 2005 and fall 2007). Similarly, the average

GPAs of admitted students over the past five years have remained stable, ranging from 3.00 (fall 2005 & 2006) to 3.01 (fall 2008) to 3.02 (fall 2009) and to 3.03 (fall 2007).

Students accepted as transfer students have completed at least 30 college level credits with a cumulative grade point average meeting or exceeding 2.0. A student with 15 to 30 completed credits will only be considered for conditional admission if they have obtained a cumulative GPA of 3.0 or higher (on a 4.0 scale), and as a condition of admission they must take a placement test. Students who have completed fewer than 15 credits apply as first-time full-time freshmen through the Office of Undergraduate Admissions. Those who have completed between 15 and 30 credits with a cumulative GPA below a 3.0 apply through the Transfer Admissions Office in CAS. Recently, the Office of Transfer Admissions implemented revised admission requirements to allow intended majors who have not met the GPA requirement for the desired major the opportunity to reach the target GPA within 24 credit hours at Kean.

Admission to the Graduate College focuses on these criteria: (1) the score on a standardized test pertaining to and specified by the preferred program of study, (2) official transcripts from previous institutions, (3) letters of recommendation, and (4) a personal statement.

Student Enrollments Kean has experienced a 23% increase in total student enrollment over the past five years (12,958 in 2005 to 15,939 in 2010). The ten-year rate of change is a 40% increase for undergraduate (9,299 in 2000 to 13,052 in 2010), a 33% increase for graduate (2,169 in 2000 to 2,887 in 2010), and 39% increase for the total university enrollment (11,468 in 2000 to 15,939 in 2010).

Fig. 5.1: Undergraduate Student Enrollment Headcount By Attendance Status 06/FA 07/FA 08/FA 09/FA 10/FA Full-Time UG # 7597 7976 8580 9355 10178 % 76.0% 76.4% 76.3% 77.5% 78.0% Part-Time UG # 2393 2465 2660 2717 2874 % 24.0% 23.6% 23.7% 22.5% 22.0% Total UG 9990 10441 11240 12072 13052 Source: Office of Institutional Research

Transfer admissions, primarily from the community colleges in the region and to Kean Ocean, have increased dramatically over the past five years.

Fig. 5.2: New Transfer Student by Class Level Class Level at Transfer 06/FA 07/FA 08/FA 09/FA 10/FA Freshman # 335 203 165 199 244 % 26.7% 15.9% 11.0% 11.5% 12.7% Sophomore # 570 637 724 892 1047 % 45.4% 49.8% 48.4% 51.5% 54.7% Junior # 331 428 603 638 617 % 26.4% 33.5% 40.3% 36.8% 32.2% Senior # 20 10 5 4 6 % 1.6% 0.8% 0.3% 0.2% 0.3% Total New Transfer 1256 1278 1497 1733 1914 Source: Office of Institutional Research

Graduate student enrollments have remained steady over the past five years although the number of students attending on a full-time basis has increased significantly.

Fig. 5.3: Graduate Student Enrollment Headcount by Attendance Status 06/FA 07/FA 08/FA 09/FA 10/FA Full-Time GR # 653 614 601 726 853 % 21.3% 20.8% 20.3% 24.4% 29.5% Part-Time GR # 2407 2339 2362 2253 2034 % 78.7% 79.2% 79.7% 75.6% 70.5% Total BR 3060 2953 2963 2979 2887

Student Retention and Graduation Kean University retention rates are presented in Fig. 5.4. Over the past ten years, Kean‘s first-time full- time undergraduates‘ retention to the second year has ranged from 75% to 81% witnessing a gradual increase in the last five years. The third and fourth year retention rate have been hovering around 64% and 59% respective, also experiencing a gradual increase in the last five years.

Fig. 5.4 Student Retention and Graduation Continuation Rates Cumulative Graduation Rates and Continuation Rates Cohort Head Contin Contin Contin Grad Contin Grad Contin Grad Contin Year Count to 2nd to 3rd to 4th in 4 Yrs to 5th in 5 Yrs to 6th in 6 Yrs to 7th Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr 2000 1161 # 922 749 679 182 443 419 170 514 58 % 79.4% 64.5% 58.5% 15.7% 38.2% 36.1% 14.6% 44.3% 5.0% 2001 1132 # 871 685 605 196 387 411 153 480 79 % 76.9% 60.5% 53.4% 17.3% 34.2% 36.3% 13.5% 42.4% 7.0% 2002 1317 # 991 776 706 218 438 494 136 575 68 % 75.2% 58.9% 53.6% 16.6% 33.3% 37.5% 10.3% 43.7% 5.2% 2003 1311 # 982 821 714 247 433 498 165 593 65 % 74.9% 62.6% 54.5% 18.8% 33.0% 38.0% 12.6% 45.2% 5.0% 2004 1254 # 961 741 705 210 472 494 164 593 50 % 76.6% 59.1% 56.2% 16.7% 37.6% 39.4% 13.1% 47.3% 4.0% 2005 1391 # 1042 887 835 288 520 577 193 % 74.9% 63.8% 60.0% 20.7% 37.4% 41.5% 13.9% 2006 1394 # 1078 902 829 267 533 % 77.3% 64.7% 59.5% 19.2% 38.2% 2007 1447 # 1123 930 851 % 77.6% 64.3% 58.8% 2008 1418 # 1148 945 % 81.0% 66.6% 2009 1518 # 1226 % 80.8% * Retention Rates are based on Fall enrollment. * Graduation rates are based on the academic year, which includes students who graduated in January, May and August. Source: Office of Institutional Research

Relative to peer institutions in NJ, Kean‘s retention/graduation rates for first-time, full-time students are in the lower range: Kean ranks 6th out of 8 for four year data and 7th out of 8 for five-and six-year rates.

According to the Consortium for Student Retention Data Exchange (CSRDE, May 2009), the six-year graduation rate for the 2002 first-time freshman cohort is 38.6% for less selective institutions and 47% for moderately selective institutions. The IPEDS Data Feedback Report 2009 (Appendix R) shows a median six-year graduation rate of 41% for Kean‘s peer institutions—14 institutions comparable to Kean in terms of student characteristics, such as diversity, percentage of students receiving Pell grants, and median SAT scores. With a six-year graduation rate of 45% (Kean Institutional Research, 2009), Kean is within range of the national figure. With regard to the four-year graduation rate, queries into IPEDS Data Center (http://nces.ed.gov/IPEDS/DATACENTER/) show an average of 20% for the 2003 first-time full-time cohort from public institutions within the Carnegie ―Master Large‖ category. Kean‘s four-year graduation rates for cohort groups over the past five years range from 16.6% (2002 cohort) to 20.7% (2005 cohort), showing Kean‘s progress in improving student graduation rates.

The progress and completion rates of Kean students are not surprising in view of demographics, particularly their financial circumstances and need to work while attending college. It is noteworthy that many Kean students manage to complete their baccalaureates within six years while working part-time and enrolled for full-time studies.

Student retention remains a challenge for Kean University and a number of initiatives are underway to improve the situation. These include faculty advisement training sessions, increased faculty office hours from 5 to 8 per week over a span of four days, and the implementation of a multi-faceted academic support program for GE foundations skills courses by the Center for Academic Success (http://www.kean.edu/~cas/). Of particular mention are two interventions delivered by the Center for Academic Success: The Early Warning Program and Academic Instructional Mentors (AIMS). Delivered through the required T2K course, the former intervenes early in the first semester, bringing resources to bear on challenges of the freshman experience. AIMS work alongside T2K instructors, meet with each student twice per semester, and document findings in a Logbook. Referrals are processed, follow up occurs, and students expressing a desire to transfer are monitored. Academic coaching is yet another component. Launched in spring 2010 by CAS, Kean‘s Academic Coaching Model is a collaborative effort with the Counseling Department of the Graduate College. Following training, eight practicum students carried a case load of 7-10 students. A control group was also established, and results showed that 13% of the control group progressed whereas the success of the Coaching group was over 70%. The program continues today and now interfaces with Residence Life.

The Role of Financial Aid in Admission and Retention

Financial aid is a key indicator for student retention. During the 2009-2010 academic year, 70% of Kean University students depended on some form of financial aid in order to attend. This percentage is slightly above the national average of 66% and higher than those of other NJ public institutions, which range between 50-60%. (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2009) The availability of financial aid plays a key role in attracting, recruiting, admitting, and retaining students. As such, the Office of Financial Aid offers a number of outreach programs and services to provide information and application assistance (in both English and Spanish).

A review of procedures in the Office of Student Financial Services revealed that policies and practices in the offices of Financial Aid and Student Accounting are not designed to actively promote student retention and graduation rates as well as make for a student friendly environment. The Office of Accreditation and Assessment conducted a survey of student satisfaction with financial services which showed an overall satisfaction rate of 59% and a response of 49% of students stating that it was ―very difficult‖ to reach a counselor. (Document 5.3)

Kean‘s Financial Aid Office plays a vital role in the recruitment/admissions process and is visible at all campus events the Office of Admissions sponsors. A recently-modified, more easily navigable website with access to all necessary forms was developed after the Middle States interview. The Office‘s fundamental responsibilities include the processing of awards within 48 hours of receipt, service to students, and the issuing of award letters. The Offices of Financial Aid and Student Accounting must embrace the University vision of student-centered operations, becoming increasingly focused on customer service. Staff training and evaluation of services through a data-driven assessment process will aid in this development.

Additionally, concerns about procedures in the Financial Office emerged in the Director‘s interview with the MSCHE Discussion described in Chapter 4, p. 39.

Kean University complies with Standard 8. Detailed Strengths, Challenges, and Recommendations for this Standard are listed in Appendix A, pp. A-4 & A-5.

Standard 9: Student Support Services

Program reports and records, promotional materials, and MS data collection templates highlighting the mission, activities, and student participation in the 200+ services the campus offers serve as data sources for this Standard.

Once admitted and matriculating, Kean students discover a wide-array of support services that cater to their academic, health and well-being, recreational, and campus life needs. A perusal of the over 270 support services and programs reflects the University‘s firm commitment to its mission and effort to develop student-centered programming consistent with its 2007-2012 Strategic Plan. The following section highlights some of Kean‘s unique support programs organized according to the following areas: Academic Support; Health, Wellness and Safety; Athletics and Recreation; and Campus Life. Refer to Document 5.4 for an inventory of these programs, along with informational materials and annual reports.

Academic Support

Advisement For ‗native‘ Kean students, those who enter as freshmen, advisement takes place in the T-2 Kean (T2K) class and in the department with faculty advisors for those who indicate an ‗Intended‘ major upon entering the University. For ‗native‘ Kean students who enter as ‗Undecided‘, advisement originates in the Center for Academic Success (CAS, refer to commentary in subsequent sections of this chapter) and later transfers to the selected department. In addition to general advisement at the department level, the College of Education holds freshman advisement sessions in the fall and spring for a general college overview as well as small group departmental advisement with individual program coordinators. At all times during the semester, resident faculty are available for students during posted weekly office hours.

For transfer students, initial transfer evaluation takes place when transcripts are reviewed as part of the admission process. For fall transfer students, in-person advisement starts with registration /orientation sessions held by the CAS, starting in mid-spring and running through August. In-person advisement for spring transfers runs from mid-late November through mid-January. CAS houses the Director of Transfer Admissions and a staff of eight. Resident faculty from all programs and departments personally advise students based on their transfer evaluations. As mentioned above, additional advisement may take place in the form of college orientations, and resident faculty are again available during weekly hours.

Advisement has been and continues to be a high priority for the administration and, to that end, it has implemented several initiatives. Two years ago, the administration required extended office hours of all resident faculty to 8 hours per week. The advisement variable, along with the service, teaching, and research requirements of all faculty, has been cited as a contributing factor in their ‗demanding‘ workload. (Chapter 6) Other advisement initiatives have included the recent requirement for all students to seek ‗in person‘ advisement in order to have an electronic restriction preventing them from registering removed.

The University has embraced the vitally important nature of advisement and the role it plays in the retention and support of its growing student body. This value served as the primary reason for significantly increasing faculty advisement responsibilities several years ago. An Office of Student Intervention and Retention is now in place, engaging a variety of initiatives to improve both retention and graduation rates. (Document 5.5: The Office of Student Intervention and Retention Assessment Plan) However, there is an apparent lack of training, especially in orienting faculty to honor and implement legally mandated classroom accommodations and adaptations for students with disabilities. While two specific programs for the latter exist and are marketed throughout campus, much remains to be accomplished to provide faculty with the knowledge needed for ensuring student success. Assessment of advisement is conducted through various indirect and direct evidence measures. Direct evidence measures include retention statistics and the

number of students advised per semester. Indirect evidence includes data from the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) report, SIR-II items and in-house student surveys. A comparison of Kean's NSSE survey results for 2003 and 2010 indicate that Kean has made progress in the area of faculty-student interaction. Specifically 60% of first-year and 61% of senior students stated that they discussed grades or assignments with an instructor, while in 2003, 51% of first-year and 46% of senior students indicated so.

For the benchmark of Student-Faculty Interaction, both first-year and seniors students scored higher in 2010 than 2003. First-year students scored 45.4 in 2010 and 39.5 in 2003, and senior students scored 43.2 in 2010 and 37.3 in 2003. Besides, Kean‘s first-year students scored significantly higher than their peers at other institutions in 2010 for the benchmark of Student-Faculty Interaction.

When answering questions related to faculty-student interaction in the NSSE, 81% of first-year students and 84% senior students reported using e-mail to communicate with an instructor in 2010, when in 2003, 61% of first-year and 57% of senior students indicated the same. Fifty-eight percent of first-year and 60% of senior students indicate that they frequently get prompt verbal or written feedback from faculty members, while in 2003, 48% of first-year and 50% of senior students specified so. Seventy-six percent of seniors indicated that they at least occasionally discuss career plans with faculty while in 2003, 71% stated so.

The Center for Academic Success The Center for Academic Success (CAS), a uniquely conceptualized facility (Chapter 1, p. 5), serves as the cornerstone of Kean's commitment to opportunity. Integrating new and undecided student advisement, learning support and career counseling to ensure full service to our students relative to advisement in the academic departments, CAS and its myriad offerings are designed to help Kean realize its mission of educational access and excellence. The following units function within the CAS structure: Transfer Admission and Evaluation, Orientation Services, Undecided/Undeclared Student Services, the Tutoring Program, Academic Dismissal Appeals Service, Career Development and Advancement Program, Passport Program, International Student Services Program, Veterans Affairs Office, and One Stop Service Center. The newly funded and conceptualized Writing Center, also housed in CAS, provides one-on-one support for all writers, regardless of their writing stage, major, or year at the University. Since its opening in spring 2010, the staff has provided support to over 1,100 students.

The Career Development and Advancement Center prepares students and graduates to compete in today's ever changing job market. The services available include Career fairs as well as individual and group workshop programs on Resume Writing, Interview Preparation, Job Search Skills, "How to Choose a Major," and "How to Dress for Success," Additional information is available in Chapter 8, p. 87.

The Passport Program, which admits approximately 150 each year, serves students who demonstrate the determination to navigate college-level courses although they might not fully meet traditional admission criteria. Prior to their first term at Kean, all PASSPORT students attend a mandatory orientation program that includes workshops, presentations, and social and cultural events. PASSPORT students continue to receive advisement, tutoring, and academic support from the Program for two years.

The Exceptional Educational Opportunities (EEO) Program, the NJ State-funded EOF Program, admits approximately 150 students a year who do not qualify for regular admission, lack the funds to attend college, yet exhibit the potential and commitment to obtain a college degree. The program provides a six- week summer Developmental and Affective Learning program designed to develop students‘ positive self- concepts and foster feelings of security and self-motivation. Thorough academic advisement, early career planning/counseling and peer-counseling are core program components. Two significant achievements in the past year include the alignment of EEO admissions standards with those of the University and

assessment of student outcomes, which led to reduced admission goals from 250 to 150 students per year in order to provide more comprehensive student services and improve retention.

The Entry Program Into College (EPIC) serves adults aged 25 or older who understand the importance, value and necessity of a college education in today‘s changing job market. EPIC offers students the opportunity to become a Kean student if they demonstrate the potential, motivation, and perseverance to succeed. After EPIC students successfully complete 18 to 24 credits of part-time study at Kean, they then have the option to become full-time students taking 12 or more credits per semester. Since 2005-2006, enrollment in EPIC has declined from 167 to 73 in 2009-2010.

The Counseling Center and Office of Disability Services serve two diverse, mission-affirming student sectors. The Counseling Center provides in-depth, individually tailored psychotherapy services and programs to address the mental health issues that may adversely impinge on academic performance. The staff of the Office of Disability Services includes trained professional counselors and a part-time psychiatrist to ensure University compliance with the requirements of the American with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The Office of Disability Services provides academic assistance through priority registration for classes, registration assistance, class relocation, and accommodations, such as note takers and signers, to all students with physical, medical, and psychological disabilities. Students with Learning Disabilities are evaluated by Project Excel with services and accommodations being provided by either Project Excel or Disability Services. Project Excel is designed for individuals with documented learning disabilities or Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD/ADHD) as their primary disability. Enrollment has remained somewhat steady with 182 students in 2005-2006 and 215 students in 2010-2011.

The Center for International Studies (Study Abroad and TraveLearn), a unit within the Office of the VPAA, encourages eligible, matriculated students to study abroad. A complete overview of the program is available in Chapter 8, pp. 91-92.

The Office of International Student Services, a unit within CAS, is responsible for International Students‘ activities with respect to immigration status, finances, and social interactions. In the past five years, students receiving services ranged from 357 to a current 286. The unit‘s mission is to ensure International Students and their dependents maximum opportunity for a positive experience during their stay in the US. This office developed an excellent website for the variety of programs and activities related to international studies.

With the recent implementation of the new Post 9/11 Bill, The Office of Veteran’s Affairs is responsible for advising military veterans eligible for the G.I. Bill on how to apply to the University and properly prepare the paperwork necessary to receive benefits to attend Kean University as students. With the recent hiring of a Director for Veterans Affairs, this office served more than 150 students in 2010, a figure that is more than double the annual average over the prior three years. Health, Wellness and Campus Safety The Health Services Center (HS) offers high quality, accessible, cost effective, ambulatory healthcare to the university community. Its primary service is to dispense immediate first aid and emergency care for resident or commuter students. Recent accomplishments include implementation of the new Hepatitis B vaccination law; free HIV counseling and testing; free influenza testing; and H1N1 and influenza vaccine clinics. Benchmark assessments are integrated into all aspects of the health care delivery service system, from wait time studies, Electronic Feasibility Records (EMR), Patient Satisfaction Surveys, to Patient Needs Survey. Health Services recently hired a Nurse Practitioner in Women‘s Health and a Family Health Nurse Practitioner and has begun to explore utilizing student-nurse interns. Four-year data from 2006-2009 reflect a monthly average of 236 students being seen by a Registered Nurse in the Center.

The Department of Public Safety and Police provides 24-hour crime patrol and response on campus. Staff include 28 officers and 15 security guards. In the event of an emergency, students may utilize any of the University's 19 highly visible blue phones to contact the police or any other department on campus. A recently installed, state-of-art Campus Alert system allows campus police to send automated telephone calls, text messages and e-mail messages to all registered students, faculty and staff. In collaboration with the University Safety Committee, the Department recently developed a new campus-wide Emergency Management Plan replete with mandatory community-wide training.

Athletics and Recreation Athletics The intercollegiate athletic program at Kean University operates on the premise that a properly administered athletic program contributes to the total educational process of the individual student-athlete. The Athletics Department recognizes that its contribution to the overall learning of the student-athlete is primarily through the departmental academic advisor/coordinator.

Recreation and Intramural Activities Kean operates one moderately-sized recreational fitness center and shares one competitive-sized swimming pool and a small recreational gymnasium with the Physical Education, Recreation and Health (PERH) academic department. Intramural activities, club sports, leisure classes and personal fitness activities share the campus‘ newly-built athletics facilities in Harwood Arena. Campus Life

The Residential Community (Housing and Residential Life) Living on campus opens opportunities for students to experience different social, linguistic, and cultural backgrounds. Students may choose from any one of the six mid-rise self-contained apartment complexes or two traditionally-styled residence halls. With the recent completion (July 2009) of two new self- contained apartment complexes, the University has increased the resident student population to 2,000. The Office of Residential Life (ORL), comprised of both professional staff and student staff, oversees the residential community. The ORL is organized to advance student learning through residence hall government, resident assistant (RA) education, special lifestyle housing, living and learning programs, and similar educational experiences designed to structure the peer environment in the residence halls.

Student Activities & Events Kean students are encouraged early in their collegiate career to become actively involved in campus life. Many student activities are implemented to support student engagement. Some have their roots in campus tradition while others address various student interests. Students receive notification about events and organizations via email and the University's new Kean Mobile App. The Kean Mobile App provides students with immediate and 24-7 access to information ranging from daily athletic events at the University to upcoming workshops, meetings, financial or academic deadlines, job fairs, and more.

Center for Leadership and Service The Center for Leadership and Service, one of Kean‘s newer organizations, is committed to providing opportunities for student leadership development training, community service involvement, service learning, and campus organizational development. The Center also serves as a clearinghouse for participation in volunteer activities, it assists students in planning and participation in a wide variety of activities that complement the academic experience, and it serves as a vital link in providing students with all things related to student life at Kean University. As such, the website and on-line newspaper, the Cougar‘s Byte, offer listings of Special Interest Organizations and Greek Organizations.

In keeping with the introspective intent of the Self Study, the SC not only identified a vast selection of student support services and organizations, but was also astonished by the sheer number offered across the academic, student life, and athletic units that infrequently interface or communicate with one another in an organized fashion. While clearly these services and organizations overwhelmingly support the university mission, it appears counterproductive to have so many offerings scattered across campus that are not systematically categorized or universally disseminated from a centralized office or site. To this end and as a result of the self-study, the University‘s fall 2010 facebook page offers a direct link (http://kean.collegiatelink.net/) to an events calendar, a descriptive student organization listing as well as other community offerings. Although this repository does not yet represent all services and organizations available to students, it demonstrates Kean‘s commitment to better serve its student community.

Kean University complies with Standard 9. Detailed Strengths, Challenges, and Recommendations for this Standard are listed in Appendix A, p. A-5.

CHAPTER 6 FACULTY (STANDARD 10)

Data sources for this Standard include the MS Faculty Survey, departmental annual reports, and reports from Institutional Research, Human Resources, Office of Computer & Information Services, Office of Research & Sponsored Programs, Registrar, and Office of Vice President for Academic Affairs.

Institutional Context

Faced with severe cuts in State funding and reluctant to deviate from its mission of accessibility by increasing tuition, the University chose a course of action that combined cost-cutting and increased student enrollments. This strategy has allowed Kean to deal with rising enrollments in the short-term without additions to full-time faculty through a combination of overload assignments, reductions in released time, and the hiring of adjunct faculty. While the strategy was successful in the short-term, avoiding wholesale reductions in staff, it is not sustainable over the long-term and most importantly for supporting the teacher- scholar model. Additional demands on resident faculty also limit the time needed for scholarly work and therefore can negatively impact tenure and promotion.

As part of the self-study, the SC developed and administered an extensive 62-item faculty survey in spring 2010 (Document 6.1: Faculty Survey Spring 2010) to all full-time and adjunct faculty. The response rate of 240 resident faculty and 130 adjunct faculty was statistically significant. Many answers to the survey questions show a bimodal distribution of positive and negative responses. In addition to answering the survey questions, 154 faculty wrote expansive comments about their concerns in response to the final open- ended survey question: What key changes have occurred in the last five years that you would like us to know about? Those comments can be categorized into five broad areas: faculty morale, faculty support, academic support, technology and instrumentation, and management and governance. Comments related to technology and instrumentation and academic support show the same bimodal distribution as responses to survey questions and are discussed under those subheadings later in this chapter. Those on faculty morale, faculty support, and management and governance were skewed strongly to the negative.

The full faculty survey, quantitative responses (Appendix S: Responses to Questions 1-61: Faculty Survey SP2010) and qualitative data (Appendix T: Summary of Responses to Question 62: Faculty Survey SP2010) are appended to this report. Additional information is provided in Appendix A.

Significant changes in department structure, the delivery of some academic programs, faculty released time, and other faculty supports were recently implemented as part of the planned academic restructuring initiative that began in AY 2010-2011. (Appendix F: Reorganization Document of Academic Affairs) All information in this chapter reflects the situation as of the end of the 2009-2010 academic year. Changes proposed or implemented since that time have not been addressed.

Faculty Population and Demographics

Kean's faculty deliver the University‘s core mission. They provide sound academic programs for all undergraduate and graduate students, promoting, facilitating, assuring, and evaluating student learning. The ensuing data describe the attributes, activities, attitudes and effectiveness of faculty engaged in the University's instructional, research, and service programs. Unless specifically noted, the term "faculty" includes full-time, part-time and adjunct faculty, both tenured and untenured.

To meet the course requirements of an expanding student body, the total number of Kean faculty has increased steadily over the past five years from a total of 1162 in 2005 to 1,329 in fall 2009. While adjunct faculty has increased by 24% (from 770 to 953), the number of full-time faculty has decreased by over 8% (from 384 to 352). (Document 6.2: Student and Faculty Profile, Office of Institutional Research, 2009)3 In spite of such a significant shift in the faculty population, the number of full-time faculty has remained approximately constant in all of the Colleges although a significant decrease of 24 faculty occurred in the College of Education. In part, the move of the Department of Educational Leadership from the College of Education to the Graduate College in 2006, which affected seven faculty, accounts for this change.

While the number of course sections taught by adjunct faculty is a growing concern, the academic departments take several steps to ensure quality of instruction. First, the University verifies the credentials of new hires. In addition, new adjuncts are provided an orientation to Kean, and returning adjuncts are supported with professional development opportunities through the Center for Professional Development. Evidence of in-class instruction is verified by departmental observations and SIR-II reports.

Recent data from the Office of Human Resources indicate that 32 additional full-time faculty have separated from the University between January 1 and September 1, 2010. During that time, 13 faculty were hired. The result is a further decrease in the number of full-time faculty to 333. Of the 32 faculty who left, 5 resigned, 7 were not reappointed, 16 retired, 2 temporary appointments expired and 2 are deceased.

Fig. 6.1 Faculty Headcount FA 2005-09 Fig. 6.2 F/T Faculty by College FA 05-09

Source: Faculty Profile, Office of Institutional Research, Kean University, Document 6.2

With the increasing number of adjunct faculty has come a corresponding increase in the number of course sections taught by adjunct faculty (40.9% in 2005 to 47.0% in 2009; Document 6.3: Registrar Office Data: Number of Course Sections by Faculty,) as shown in Fig. 6.3. Improving the full-time faculty adjunct ratio is a major university concern to ensure quality in the delivery of academic program offerings.

Fig. 6.3 Course Sections Taught by Full-time/Adjunct Faculty Course Sections by Full-time/Adjunct Faculty 05/FA 06/FA 07/FA 08/FA 09/FA Full-time Faculty 1494 1344 1408 1447 1444 Other (Staff & Blank) 205 147 193 180 204 Part-time Faculty (Adjunct + Part-time Faculty) 1178 1193 1236 1342 1461 Total Course Sections 2877 2684 2837 2969 3109 Source: Registrar Office Data from Course_Sec_Froz & Employee Table-based on Inst Profile Section F2

3 Updated faculty data that includes fall 2010 is available on the Institutional Research website for figures 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, 6.16, and 6.26.

query

Sixty to over 70% of faculty in each College except the Graduate College are now adjuncts. Faculty lines recently requested by College Deans are shown in the following table. (Document 6.4: Faculty Senate White Paper October 10, 2009) The total is not substantially larger than the number of faculty (51.3) needed simply to offset the overload responsibilities assumed by full-time faculty discussed in Fig. 6.13 in a later section. Fig. 6.4 Distribution of F/T & Adj. Faculty by College College Full-Time % of total Adjunct % of total Lines Requested Education 70 38 167 62 8 Business & Public Admin. 47 31 111 69 17 Nat’l Applied & Health Sciences 67.5 33 155 67 5 Humanities & Social Sciences 89 30 298 70 12 Visual & Performing Arts 41 27 115 73 13.5 Nathan Weiss Graduate College 28.5 77 10 23 14 Total lines 69.5 Source: White Paper: Addendum; Full-Time/Adjunct Professors by College and Department at Kean University, Faculty Senate, October 10, 2009

Of note in the Faculty Senate‘s White Paper is the number of adjuncts staffing 1000 level courses for General Education. This finding warrants examination with regard to student success and retention.

Faculty Diversity Kean University is particularly proud of its faculty and student diversity. Over the past five years, the number of Black and Hispanic faculty has decreased, while the number of Asian faculty has increased. Relative to the overall decrease in full-time faculty, the University‘s average percentage for diverse faculty has increased by almost 3% for a total of 28.13%.

Fig. 6.5 Minority Faculty Headcount

Source: Faculty Profile, Office of Institutional Research, Kean University

Fig. 6.6 Full-Time Faculty Diversity Full-Tim Faculty 05/FA 06/FA 07/FA 08/FA 09/FA

Total # 384 370 375 368 352 # 99 100 108 107 99 Minority % 25.8% 27.2% 29.0% 29.2% 28.2% Female # 175 171 176 167 163 % 45.8% 46.2% 46.9% 45.4% 46.3%

Source Calculation based on Data in Fig. 6.5

There is no significant change over the past five years in the number of adjunct faculty identifying their ethnic group. Fig. 6.7. (Document 6.2: Student & Faculty Profile, Office of Institutional Research, 2009)

Fig. 6.7 Adjunct Faculty Diversity Adjunct Faculty 05/FA 06/FA 07/FA 08/FA 09/FA Total Adjunct 770 841 894 896 953 # Reported Ethnicity 591 577 562 554 646 Minority 133 130 132 130 145 Female 384 440 471 462 505 Source: Office of Institutional Research

Faculty Responsibilities and Representation

Faculty and professional staff,4 as represented by the Council of NJ State College (CNJSC) Locals and the State of NJ, enter into collective negotiations with the expectation that their Agreement (Document 6.5: FT 2007-2011 Agreement State of NJ, CNJSC) will enhance the ability of the State Colleges and Universities to serve their constituents. Both parties endorse the concepts and subscribe to the traditional principles of academic freedom, professional ethics, and responsibilities. As the bargaining agent for faculty, librarians, professional staff, and adjuncts in two separate statewide bargaining units,5 each of which includes the four State Colleges and five State Universities, the CNJSC AFT-AFL-CIO represents its members in all matters relating to terms and conditions of employment.

Teaching Load Faculty are responsible for an academic year teaching load of 24 credit hours over 32 weeks of instruction. Teaching assignments cannot exceed three different course sections each semester, except when course offerings cannot be scheduled on this basis or a faculty member‘s schedule includes one or more two credit-hour courses. Adjunct faculty teaching hours are not restricted by their Agreement (Document 6.6: Adjunct Faculty Agreement2007-2011), but local policy permits each adjunct to teach up to 9 credits or 3 courses per semester, whichever is greater, at their Dean‘s discretion.

At a frequency of no less than every seven years, full-time faculty are eligible to apply for Kean‘s portion of the 180/190 half-year sabbatical leaves6 authorized by the State to the State Colleges /Universities. Kean‘s portion is approximately 25 half-year sabbatical leaves each year,7 yet the number granted has been consistently below that authorized, decreasing from 12 for 2007-2008 to 6 for 2010-2011.

Fig. 6.8 Sabbatical Leaves 2007-2011 Academic Year 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 1 yr 1/2 yr 1 yr 1/2 yr 1 yr 1/2 yr 1 yr ½ yr Sabbaticals Granted 5 2 5 2 2 3 2 2

4 Includes teaching and/or research faculty; department chairpersons; non-managerial administrative staff; librarians, student personnel staff; demonstration teachers; part-time personnel employed in the above categories; and members of the unit who teach summer session. 5 Full-Time 2007-2011 Agreement and Adjunct Faculty Agreement 2007-2011 6 180 half-year sabbatical leaves are authorized for academic years 2007-2008, 2008-2009; 190 half-year sabbatical leaves are authorized for academic years 2009-2010, 2010-2011. 7 Agreement, State of New Jersey, Council of New Jersey State College Locals, AFT, AFL-CIO, State Colleges/Universities Unit, July 1, 2007-June 30, 2011.

½ year equivalents 10 2 10 2 4 3 4 2 Advisement & Office Hours Since 2006, faculty have been required to hold at least eight hours weekly of office hours/undergraduate and graduate student advisement per week in addition to the contractually specified teaching load. (Document 6.7: Faculty Office Hour Policy, 2006) At that time, the nine full-time college advisors who had assisted with the advisement process were reassigned to other administrative duties. Although students in special programs such as EEO are advised for all undergraduate years by EEO Counselors, full-time faculty still advise all students in their major regardless of their status in a special program.

Since Kean has a total of 15,051 students in the 2009-2010 academic year and 354 full-time faculty, each full-time faculty member currently has the responsibility for advising an average of 44 students (Document 6.8: Faculty Advisee Assignments, Office of the Registrar). Faculty advisement loads vary, according to the number of student majors, Fig. 6.10, which leaves faculty of popular majors, like those in the Colleges of Business and Public Administration and Education, with advisement loads well over 100 advisees per faculty member.

Fig. 6.9 Advisees per Faculty by Rank Fig. 6.10 Advisees per Faculty by College

Number of Advisees per Faculty by Rank Number of Advisees per Faculty by College

Fig. 6.11 F/T Faculty Overload Credits & Annual Expense Fig. 6.12 Overload Participation & FT Equivalent

Source: Office of Computer and Information Services

Fig. 6.9 shows that assistant professors advise a greater number of students than associate or full professors do. Adjunct faculty do not have advisement responsibilities. Fig. 6.9 indicates that nine adjunct faculty have assigned advisees. Data available for this study listed approximately 1,500 students assigned to faculty who had left the University and who had not been reassigned to the 354 currently-employed full- time faculty. Thus, the number of advisees per faculty must be higher than what is shown in both graphs. Overload As a way of helping the University meet its teaching and administrative needs without further increasing the adjunct/faculty ratio, a large fraction of full-time faculty elect to undertake overload assignments. (Document 6.9: Faculty Overload Assignments, Payroll Office) The cost of full-time faculty overload has increased steadily since 2006, rising 24% over the level in 2005. While the average number of overload credits per faculty has decreased slightly over this five-year period from an average of 6.25 to 5.02 credits (Fig. 6.10), the percentage of full-time faculty accepting overload assignments has substantially increased from 55% in 2005 to 70% in 2009, Fig. 6.11. The full-time faculty equivalent of each year's overload is also shown in Fig. 6.11. Data indicate that an additional 51 full-time faculty (or many more adjuncts) would have been needed in 2009 to complete the work assumed as overload by full-time faculty.

Released Time With 70% of full-time faculty accepting overload assignments, only 30% of the faculty is eligible for released time since official policy restricts a faculty member from agreeing to both at the same time. Data about faculty released time roughly corroborates the predictions of eligibility. Since 70% of full-time faculty had overload in 2009, 30% would be eligible for released time that year as shown in Fig. 6.13. C r The percentage of faculty with released time has decreased from 46.6% in 2006 to 30.5% in 2009. The e number of released-time credits has remained in the range of 4-4.5 credits per year. (Document 6.10: d Released Time Reports, Office of Institutional Research) i t As of the date of this report, released time dedicated to departmental support, specifically compensation for h o departmental chair, is the only item relatively stable in Fig. 6.13. All other items have been reduced. The u released time component for research unsupported by grants, shown at the top of each column, is too small r to be visible of the scale of this graph. s Fig. 6.13 Released Time by Responsibilities

Qualifications and Effectiveness

Qualifications and Alignment to University Mission and Accreditation Standards. Faculty qualifications closely align with Kean‘s Mission Statement (Appendix B) and the 2002-2007 Strategic Plan (Appendix C). Teaching excellence is a priority, and emphasis is placed on attracting and retaining faculty with terminal degrees in their respective fields. (Document 6.11: Faculty Profile) Over the last five years, tenured full-time faculty at the University has averaged between 72-76%, while 21-24%

is on tenure-track. The number of full-time faculty holding a terminal degree has risen to 91%. Prior to 2007, documentation for adjunct faculty had been maintained at the department level so complete data is not available. Based on more comprehensive 2009-2010 data, the percentage of adjunct faculty who hold a master‘s degree or higher is at least 66%-73%.

Fig. 6.14 Tenure Status of Full-time Faculty Tenure Status 05/FA 06/FA 07/FA 08/FA 09/FA # 277 268 272 264 267 Tenured % 72.1% 72.4% 72.5% 71.7% 75.9% # 90 97 91 89 75 On Tenure Track % 23.4% 26.2% 24.3% 24.2% 21.3% # 17 5 12 15 10 Not on Tenure Track % 4.4% 1.4% 3.2% 4.1% 2.8% Total FT Faculty 384 370 375 368 352 Source: Office of Institutional Research, Student and Faculty Profile, Fall 2009

Fig. 6.15 F/T Faculty Education, Highest Degree Attained Degree 05/FA 06/FA 07/FA 08/FA 09/FA 10/FA # 318 314 319 312 301 290 Doctorate % 82.8% 84.9% 85.1% 84.8% 85.5% 84.5% # 64 56 56 56 51 52 Master's % 16.7% 15.1% 14.9% 15.2% 14.5% 15.2% # 1 1 Not Available % 0.3% 0.3% # 341 337 339 332 322 311 Terminal Degree % 88.8% 91.1% 90.4% 90.2% 91.5% 90.7% Total FT Faculty 384 370 375 368 352 343 Source: Office of Institutional Research, Student and Faculty Profile

Fig. 6.16 Adjunct Faculty Education, Highest Degree Attained Degree 05/FA 06/FA 07/FA 08/FA 09/FA 10/FA Doctorate # 61 82 101 105 131 150 % 7.8% 9.8% 11.3% 11.7% 13.7% 15.0% Master's # 215 288 372 422 501 583 % 27.6% 34.2% 41.6% 47.1% 52.6% 58.3% Bachelor’s # 48 66 77 91 106 114 % 6.2% 7.8% 8.6% 10.2% 11.1% 11.4% Not Available # 454 405 344 278 215 153 % 58.4% 48.2% 38.5% 31.0% 22.6% 15.3% Total Adjunct Faculty 778 841 894 896 953 1000

Source: Office of Human Resources

A number of academic programs hold national accreditation (Document 6.12: Program Accreditations, Kean University 2009 Catalogue), and to meet those standards, faculty must satisfy criteria in their areas of expertise: degree of faculty and department autonomy, full-time faculty/adjunct ratio teaching major courses and support for scholarship, laboratory equipment, technology, and course development.

Involvement in Research, Scholarship, and Creative works

Undergraduate teaching is at the heart of Kean‘s mission. (Appendix B: Mission Statement) In addition to their 12-credit teaching load and 8 hours per week of advisement, Kean faculty are productive scholars and artists who also perform service roles on numerous department and university committees and through curriculum development and scholarly organizations. In a recent spring 2010 faculty survey (Appendix S: Faculty Survey: Work Hours), the number of self-assessed working hours increased over the past 5 years from an average of 69.2 to 73.9 hours per week with the largest increase attributed to teaching, followed by smaller increases in service to Kean and in research and creative works.

Fig. 6.17 Faculty Self-Assessed Working Hrs. per Week

Source: Faculty Survey Sp 2010, Response to Question # 3

Comprehensive data across the University on faculty publications, presentations, performances, grants, and awards are reported in department annual reports. New initiatives standardize reporting of this information and make it readily accessible. The College of Education has created a functional database of faculty scholarship where faculty can continually update their publications, presentations, and service. In spring 2011 the University will implement the Kean Online Record of Research and Scholarship (KORRS), a searchable electronic clearinghouse that archives information about faculty publications, presentations, papers, performances, and other scholarly activities as well as fellowships, awards, and grants. (Document 6.13: KORRS Announcement: June 2010 ORSP Newsletter) Linked to the Kean University Library ContentDM repository (Document 6.14), this dynamic database will offer data access and support department annual reporting.

Fig. 6.18 Research & Creative Work by Fig. 6.19 Scholarly Activity by Faculty Category/Faculty by College Research & Creative Work by Scholarly Activity by College / Category /Faculty, 08-09 faculty, 08-09 Presentation 4 BPA 4 s 2 ColEd 2 Creative

0 0

HSS Works

HSS BPA VPA Publications

NAHS ColEd

NAHS NWGS

Source: Tabulation of Academic Dept Annual Reports

Academic department annual reports for 2008-2009 (Document 6.15), accreditation reports, program accreditation reports (Document 6.16), and faculty survey results show that faculty are actively publishing

in peer-reviewed journals, presenting at regional and national professional conferences, and performing and exhibiting their creative work. On the average, faculty in all colleges and at all stages in their careers averaged 2-3 professional publications, presentations or creative works in the 2008-2009 academic year. (Fig. 6.18) A data count of the 2008-2009 annual reports shows 108 peer-reviewed publications, 9 books, 13 edited books, 26 scholarly book chapters, 17 teaching-related publications, 214 scholarly and professional conference presentations, 109 workshops presented or led, 26 panels moderated and 100 creative works and performances. (Document 6.17: Tabulation of Department Reports, 2009) The fraction of faculty by college included in the scholarly activity data is shown below in Fig. 6.20.

Fig. 6.20 Fraction of Faculty by College Included in Scholarly Activity Data College Fraction of Faculty Included Business & Public Admin. 41 / 49 Education 35 / 70 Humanities & Social Sciences 89/ 94 Nat’l, Applied & Health Sciences 53 / 69 Visual & Performing Arts 21 / 40 Nathan Weiss Graduate College 6 / 27 All College Faculty 245 / 349 Source: Tabulation of Academic Dept. Annual Reports

Responses to the survey (Appendix S) regarding time allotted for teaching, research/creative work, service, and growth, show strong commitment, regardless of rank, across all five categories. (Figs. 6.21 and 6.22) . Fig. 6.21 Faculty Self-Assessed Avg. Weekly Hrs. by Activity by College

Source: Faculty Sp 10 Survey, Responses to Questions #1 and #3

Fig. 6.22 Faculty Self-Assessed Avg. Weekly Hrs. by Activity by Rank

Source: Faculty Sp 10 Survey, Responses to Questions #2 and #3 Educational Effectiveness Kean‘s active faculty have developed and implemented many pedagogical initiatives to enhance educational experiences and outcomes. Examples include Process-Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL) in Chemistry (Document 6.18); the CSI: PST project (Document 6.19: Case Study Instruction: Pre-professional Science Teachers and Summary Description), a novel, inquiry-based case study method of classroom instruction appropriate for pre-professional high school science teachers; the student research- team-based blend of biology, chemistry, and mathematics instruction in the NJCSTM program (Document 6.20: Research-Team Description NJCSTM); the problem-oriented, web-enhanced, and activity-based elementary statistics course (Document 6.21: Statistics Course Innovations Description); and ELUMINATE, an internet-based conferencing class\used by the Speech-Language Pathology department. (Document 6.22) Faculty also develop university-wide programs and services, such as the new Writing Center, which was created in 2010 by faculty in the English Department to meet the needs of Kean‘s linguistically-diverse student population. (Document 6.23) The College of Education uses the Teacher Work Sample (TWS) as a capstone project to measure the knowledge, skills, and dispositions teachers must have. Student success on it is a strong indicator of educational effectiveness in the College of Education as are the passing rates on the PRAXIS II Exam.

Recruiting and Retaining

Diversity and Equal Employment Academic (faculty) searches follow equal opportunity and Affirmative Action Guidelines. (Document 6.24) In addition to the Kean University website, positions are advertised in Diverse Issues in Higher Education (formerly Black Issues in Higher Education), Chronicle of Higher Education, Hispanic Outlook in Higher Education, and the Newark Star-Ledger. Other advertising outlets include the HigherEd Jobs website, discipline-specific publications, journals and websites. Department search committees receive procedural guidance on compliance with federal and state laws and are also advised of Kean University‘s commitment to establishing and maintaining a diverse campus community, a principle that is integrally woven into the University‘s mission. Hiring departments recommend at least three (3) candidates to their respective Deans. Reimbursement for related expenses is available for on-campus interview finalists.

Brief, Procedural Outline of the Tenure, Retention, and Promotion Process The Office of the VPAA coordinates notifications for the retention, tenure, and promotion processes in accordance with procedures negotiated with the bargaining agent. (Document 6.25: Procedures, Applications, and Letters of Agreement for Tenure, Retention and Promotion Committees) The timetable for notification, criteria, and forms are posted on the University‘s website.

The academic restructuring initiative that began in AY 2010-2011 has affected the tenure and promotion process. Certain departments no longer exist. The School Executive Director role is a management position. The role of program coordinator in the tenure, retention, and promotion process has not been defined. The information in this section reflects the situation as of the end of the 2009-2010 academic year.

Criteria for Retention, Tenure, and Promotion Criteria for retention, tenure, and promotion are announced and distributed via mechanisms established by the Office of the VPAA through departmental chairpersons. Application materials are disseminated and also available online. These processes include submission of student evaluations of faculty and peer observations (peer review) by faculty members.

With regard to criteria for retention, tenure, and promotion, survey results indicate that 80% of Kean‘s faculty understand their department/program criteria for research/scholarship/performance, teaching, and service whereas 47% understand the University‘s criteria. When asked if they feel their department / program criteria for faculty are congruent with the University‘s, 86% of respondents indicated yes. Faculty awareness of department/program criteria is evident, yet less than positive about university standards, which may be a consequence of both the change to the teacher-scholar model and the turnover in the Office of the VPAA over the past five years (five individuals have served in this capacity during that period) and the absence of clear and continuous university policy for faculty retention and tenure.

Promotion Statistics and Faculty Retention

Fig. 6.23 Promotion to Professor AY 06-07 to AY 10-11

Source: Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs

Fig. 6.24 Promotion to Assoc. Prof. AY 06-07 to AY 10-11

Source: Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs

According to the bargaining unit, librarians apply for promotion only when the university president announces their opportunity to apply. A promotion announcement for librarians has not been made during the time period the chart covers: 2006-2011. The low number of faculty promotions awarded during each

of the past five years has resulted in frustration, obscuring the possibility of an advancing career path for highly-talented, highly published, and committed faculty. The headcount of faculty by rank (Fig. 6.24 above) where an overall decline in full-time faculty is clearly evident in both the professor and associate professor ranks (Document 6.2) illustrates the consequences of the situation.

Full-professors have decreased by 17 from 147 to 130 and associate professors have decreased by 14 from 98 to 84. Full-professors who retire are not being replaced by promoting associate professors. The steady decrease of associate professors further suggests a decreased retention of highly-talented faculty at the associate professor rank. These data underscore the need for a serious plan for retaining tenured faculty to support the teacher-scholar model at the forefront of university academic policy and to support new academic programs, such as the Psy.D. and the Ed.D. programs.

Fig. 6.25 Faculty Headcount by Rank 2005-09

Source: Faculty Profile Office of Institutional Research, Kean University

Data above include non-tenure track faculty positions. According to the Office of Institutional Research, if non-tenure track faculty were dropped from the data, the number of tenure track and tenured assistant professors would be fourteen fewer in the year 2005 and three fewer in 2008. The number of tenure track and tenured associate professors would be two fewer than plotted for 2007 and four fewer for the years 2008 and 2009, thereby showing a decrease of eighteen tenure track associate professors over the five year period. An institutional priority in the 2007-2012 Strategic Plan is the core objective to expand the full- time faculty base from the current level of 352 to 450 by 2010 (Appendix C). The VPAA developed a Faculty Replenishment Plan which has been approved by the President and is being implemented to address this concern (Document 6.26)

Responsibility for Curricula and Professional Development

Responsibility for Curricula The curricular process at Kean University is governed by the faculty. The UCC is a standing committee mandated by the Constitution of the Faculty Senate. A new UCC Procedures Manual published in 2009 (Appendix U) outlines the procedures by which faculty can initiate, develop, propose, and implement new courses, programs, and majors. Each department elects members to a Department Curriculum Committee. New and revised courses and proposals for changes in programs and courses of study begin with proposals to these committees. College Curriculum Committees, as outlined by the Faculty Senate Guidelines, are composed of a representative body of faculty, professional staff, and students along with the Dean and a union representative.

The number of courses proposed and implemented, whether revised or newly-developed, over the past

Fig. 6.26 Faculty Involvement in Development of Curricula 2005-2009

Source: Faculty Survey Sp 2010, Responses to Question #5 five years shows an active process of curriculum development and commitment on the part of faculty. (Document 6.27: Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee Composition) The vast majority of new courses and course revisions are initiated by faculty members in response to changing professional and pedagogical needs in their respective disciplines. When asked, ―Have you personally been involved in designing, evaluating, or revising curricula within the past 5 years?‖ 91% of survey responses were positive. The nature of that involvement included participation on various curriculum-evaluating committees at different levels of review, which 58% viewed as a collaborative decision-making process.

Professional Development Support

Research Support for Faculty Like other predominantly undergraduate institutions, Kean faces challenges with regard to research support for faculty. Most faculty research is self-directed, non-sponsored research for the purpose of discovery, currency in the discipline, and vibrancy in the classroom. However, over the past several years a significant effort has been made both to enhance support for faculty research and increase competitiveness in securing external funding. As a result, Kean faculty are actively involved in a wide variety of research and creative activities. Sixty-eight percent responded affirmatively to the question, ―Are you involved in any research/creative activity?‘ (Appendix S) Research activities reflect a range of possibilities, but conferences (82%) and publications (76%) topped the list of responses from Kean faculty. In fact, 98% of faculty responding to the question about whether they had participated in professional conferences over the last 5 years answered yes. (This was 50% of all respondents to the questionnaire.)

University support, either financially or through released time, was cited by just over half of the respondents to this question (55%) as a factor important to their research and scholarly pursuits. Yet of those who did rely on support from the University, 43% reported that it accounted for 20% of costs or less. When the issue became a question of practical support rather than information, responses pointed to a different concern that might explain the difference in the two answers. Asked if they felt they had the support to adequately administer the funds they did receive, 52% answered in the ―maybe‖ or ―probably not‖ range. Further analysis of survey data about support for research identified the major issue as a lack of University support for the complex management and administrative duties associated with funding for research. In other words, access and funding are seen as adequate while the lack of support to administer research and funding grants and projects was seen as a critical concern to address.

Survey results also show that a large portion of the faculty (86%) regard their departments‘ criteria for research, scholarship, and creative activities as clear. The numbers change, however, with regard to the

clarity of the University‘s criteria, with more faculty answering in the negative. The different responses require attention to the development of easily accessed, written university guidelines.

Organizational Changes for Research Support Research and professional development have been given more prominence and more resources as part of an internal restructuring starting in 2008. In 2006, the Center for Professional Development was restructured to provide faculty with resources to achieve both academic and scholarly growth. Such resources include workshops on technology and pedagogy, writers‘ groups, grant writers‘ groups and a drop-in technology laboratory. In 2010, the Division of Institutional Advancement was changed to the Division of Research and Institutional Advancement and now includes the Kean University Foundation, ORSP and CPD. ORSP staff work closely with Foundation gift officers to develop funding plans that provide ongoing support for faculty research and scholarship and educational programs to enhance student learning. (Document 6.28: Organization Chart Division of Institutional Advancement) With the impending launch of a new Research Portal connected to the University‘s home page, interested parties will have easy access to a ―one-stop‖ destination for learning about faculty and student research and scholarship activities across the University.

Office of Research and Sponsored Programs The Office of Research and Sponsored Programs (ORSP) provides leadership and assistance in all areas of external grant funding to Kean University faculty and staff. ORSP maintains a comprehensive website with numerous links to funding sources. In addition, ORSP searches funding announcements daily and informs faculty about opportunities through targeted email blasts, sending 145 funding announcements to faculty in 2010. (ORSP website: Recent and Past Announcements). A link to recent funding announcements is also included in the ORSP monthly electronic newsletter. The ORSP staff provides in- house training and workshops throughout the academic year on topics such as finding funding, grants administration, and research compliance. (Document 6.29: ORSP Program Calendar) Additional information about ORSP, specifically its role in research compliance, is available in Chapter 4, pp. 36-37.

ORSP staff meet with faculty interested in submitting proposals for funding to review proposal guidelines, plan the submission process, develop budgets, obtain letters of support, and assist in the preparation and writing of the proposal. ORSP prepares necessary forms and complete all submissions. ORSP manages internal research awards, provides oversight for grants, contracts, and sponsored programs, and ensures compliance with applicable Federal, State, and University policies and regulations including research involving human subjects and care and use of laboratory animals.

The long-standing semi-annual Faculty Research Forum became an annual event in 2009. Now called University Research Days, it includes a student research showcase. Both full-time and adjunct faculty are able to submit a proposal to present their research at the event.

External Funding Proposals for funding submitted through ORSP have averaged over 100 annually since 2005 and resulted in an annual average of $9M in external funding. In AY 2010, faculty and staff submitted 137 proposals for a total of $33 million. Federally financed research funding to Kean has been steadily increasing for the past five years, from $233,387 in AY 2006 to $1,034,190 in AY 2010. Extensive data on external funding by source/type is available in Document 6.30: Major Research and Public Service Activities, Institutional Profile 2005-2009.

Internal Funding Since 2004, there has been a persistent effort to increase internal funding and support for faculty actively engaged in research. New programs focus on student participation in research and the provision of bridge or seed funding for faculty planning to apply for external funding. The eventual goal is to significantly increase external funding and thus improve support for research-oriented faculty.

As shown in Fig. 6.27, internal funding support has increased substantially over the past five years with a large fraction in the most recent years assigned to Presidential Initiatives. Since individual Presidential awards have increased in size, the total number of faculty supported decreased in 2009-2010 as shown in Fig. 6.28. Support has increased for research experiences involving students (SpF) and faculty research that has potential for attracting significant external funding (Presidential). Not all internal research awards include released time for faculty. The number of faculty receiving released time from internal research awards is shown in Fig. 6.28. Complete descriptions, guidelines, materials, and awardees for all internal programs can be found on the ORSP website: http://orsp.kean.edu/.

Fig. 6.27 Internal Research Funding 2005-10

Source: Internal Funding Report

Fig. 6.28 Number of Internal Research Awards 2005-10

Source: Internal Funding Report

Fig. 6.29 Number of Faculty with Released Time from Internal Research Awards 2005-10 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 Faculty with released time from internal research awards 21 24 29 36 27 Source: Internal Funding Report Support for research experiences involving students has been successful. The Students Partnering with Faculty program (SpF) is an extensive summer experience that continues into the next academic year and provides research opportunities for students working under the direction of a faculty mentor. This program, established in 2004, has been very successful in that 140 students have participated to date, resulting in 26 student presentations at major regional and national conferences, six student publications in peer-reviewed journals, and ten student publications in review.

The long-established letter of agreement between the KU Federation of Teachers and Kean regarding research and scholarly activity include Released Time for Research and Creative Works (RTR, established in 1976) and the Untenured Faculty Research Initiative (UFRI established in 1998). (Document 6.31) Both programs support the research and creative activities of faculty by providing up to six credits per year of released time from teaching. Both also follow a peer review process for the allocation of awards. Another negotiated program, the Tenured Faculty Research Initiative (TFRI), was established in AY 2005- 2006 specifically to facilitate research and creative work efforts among tenured faculty who had not previously received released time awards for research. Nine awards were available (one for the College of Visual and Performing Arts and two for each of the other colleges) for up to six credits released time for up to three consecutive years. The program was established for a three-year cycle, after which it was to undergo comprehensive review and assessment. Five awards were made in AY 2005-2006, two in AY 2006-2007, and four in AY 2007-2008. The program was reviewed and discontinued for AY 2008-2009.

Other internal awards include the Foundation Faculty Research Award (FFRA/2007), whose purpose is to help faculty better position themselves to apply for and receive external funding by providing financial support of up to $5,000. Five awards are given each year; the Presidential Research Initiative (PRI/2008), which provides financial support of up to $15,000 per award for research that targets certain initiatives: research involving Liberty Hall; interdisciplinary research involving at least two departments; projects that enhance the University‘s ties to NJ high schools; and the Presidential Scholars Challenge (PSC/2009), which provides financial support for equipment, supplies, and travel, released time of up to 6 credits per year, and summer salary. Thirteen Presidential Scholars Challenge awards spanning 9 departments were made for a total of $565,000 in funding. Awards ranged from $17,000 to $60,000. (Document 6.32: Internal Research Funding, ORSP)

Center for Professional Development The Center for Professional Development (CPD) has evolved over the last few years into a comprehensive service center designed to address the needs of new resident faculty (i.e., new full-time and part-time faculty members), provide continuous support throughout the tenure-track process for faculty, and expand support and technical services to all faculty and staff. (Document 6.33: CPD Program and Calendar) CPD offers opportunities for professional development for new faculty through various programs including a week-long orientation experience for new tenure-track faculty to assist with their integration into the university community, sessions on writing for research publication, and opportunities for extensive networking with colleagues across disciplines. The CPD offers technology training classes to all faculty and staff on all Microsoft Office products and Google apps. CPD also provides training in the development of faculty websites.

Tenure Track Faculty Network The Tenure Track Faculty Network (TTFN), a faculty peer group that provides professional and social support for tenure-track faculty, conducts three meetings each term on a variety of topics, including issues related to teaching and scholarship. The University President also meets with the group on an annual basis. (Document 6.34: Tenure Track Faculty Network Program and Calendar)

Workshops & Conferences According to the faculty survey and an informal email survey of Chairs and faculty, attendance at external workshops and conferences is crucial to professional development. Encouragement to participate in these types of activities seems to rely largely on informal communications within the department. Responses suggested that this informal system is usable and effective but that availability of University-level support for expenses is the key to engagement in professional development of this type. (Appendix S)

Mentoring

Most departments use mentoring as another tool for professional development, yet no standard practices or processes exist for this type of support. Whether senior faculty or the Chair mentors new, untenured, and adjunct faculty, the approach is apparently informal, reflecting the customs of individual departments. A new mentoring program, the Faculty Development Network (FDN), is presently in development. (Document 6.35) Several Research and Writers Groups have been facilitated by members of the History Department and by the Dean of the College of Education over the past three years to support junior faculty with their writing and research.

Collegiality Collegiality is an often over-looked aspect of faculty development that can contribute significantly to the mood and tenor on a campus and to the professional environment as a whole. While Kean has no official, formal program to address collegiality, informal events enhance this aspect of campus life. Asked specifically about collegiality (as related to faculty development), survey respondents pointed to services and activities on campus they find significant in this regard. Among these were the Tenure Track Faculty Network, course-specific training, various seminar series, and other offerings including Professional Development Center training, union and committee memberships, informal faculty groups and workshops, and adjunct faculty retreats. The former Faculty Writers Group was mentioned a number of times in this context. (Appendix S)

Of the events and experiences cited as relating to collegiality, more than a third (35%) of respondents identified the Tenure Track Faculty Network as an important component. Another third (31%) selected ―none‖ in answer to whether they have participated in any support systems to promote collegiality and professional development among faculty within departments and across colleges over the past 5 years.

Technology Technology Use by Faculty Kean recognizes that technology can be used to enhance student learning, modes of teaching, research and professional presentations, and publication. Increasingly, over the past five years, individual faculty have integrated the capabilities of a variety of information technologies. The recent faculty survey, for example, revealed that 75% of faculty use presentation tools (e.g. PowerPoint) and Blackboard, 62% use Internet resources (blogs, wikis, videos), 59% use online databases, 50% use discipline specific tools, and 34% require use of digital tools for creative projects (e.g, digital stories). (Appendix S)

Fig. 6.30 Technologies Used by Faculty

Faculty Survey: Which technologies are used by faculty?

80.000080 60.000070 60 40.000050 20.000040 0.000030 Key: Type of tool

Blackboard Internet Presentation Tools Percentage of Facultyof Percentage Discipline Tools Creative tools Online databases

Source: Faculty Survey Sp 2010 Responses to Question # 44

The most significant documented change is in the area of course management software use (Blackboard). Until spring 2008, faculty were required to request course management shells; thus, the number of shells requested accurately reflected faculty use and a steady increase over the past five years. The number of

course management shells created for web-enhanced courses (course sections that meet on campus and use distance learning method as a supplement for content delivery to students) has steadily increased from 217 in Fall 2006 to 354 in Spring 2008. Similarly, the number of shells created for fully online courses (course sections offered solely through distance methods that do not meet on campus) has steadily increased from zero in fall 2006 to 46 in spring 2008. (Document, 6.36: Blackboard/WebCT Report for Middle States, OCIS, June 2010)

In fall 2008, Blackboard and Datatel (Kean‘s academic computing system) were integrated, shells for all courses were created automatically, and the number of shells created no longer accurately reflects faculty use. However, faculty survey data revealed that 75% of the faculty report using blackboard in their instruction. In 2008, Kean adopted Google Mail and the accompanying suite of tools, and some faculty now create Google websites for course support to complement or replace Blackboard. Faculty perceive that university sponsored support services for online teaching are very limited. According to the survey, only 4% perceive the 24 hour help desk as viable.

Kean University provides faculty computers to support technology integration into instruction. According to an OCIS faculty PC report, 28% of faculty have laptops and 72% have desktops. Thirty-nine percent of faculty computers are fewer than 3 years old, 5% are 3-5 years old, and 56% of faculty computers are more than 5 years old. (Document 6.37: Report on Faculty Computers, OCIS, June 2010) The age of faculty computers correlates with the bimodal distribution of faculty satisfaction with their office computers.

Replacement of Faculty Computers Policy regarding computer upgrades for faculty has changed in the last five years. At this time, requests for new computers are considered case-by-case. Since 2008, faculty have received laptops only. One hundred new laptops were distributed to faculty in AY 2009. Training was available for those receiving PCs in 2008 but not for those with Apple computers. New equipment is high quality and includes a suite of key essential software. OCIS offers free downloads of key software, such as Office professional, Front Page, SharePoint Designer, and Antivirus Tools. Individual departments are responsible for purchasing, maintaining, and updating discipline specific software.

Reasons for Not Teaching Online Thirty-five percent of the faculty do not use online course management systems. Eighty-eight percent of these faculty report time constraints as an important reason for not doing so. Fifty-four percent of the faculty not teaching online report inadequate knowledge and experience with the technology as a reason for not teaching online. Of those who do not teach online, thirty-four percent indicate lack of departmental support as their reason. Nine percent do not perceive online teaching as a priority for tenure and promotion. (Document 6.38: Report on Distance Learning Education using CMS, OCIS, June 2010) Faculty perceive that university sponsored support services for online teaching are very limited. According to the survey, only 4% perceive the 24 hour help desk as viable, and 13% feel University support for software used in online teaching is adequate.

Facilities (A complete inventory of classroom technology is available in Chapter 3 p. 27.) Mediated Classrooms: Wireless access is available throughout the campus. Since the last Middle States review, the number of technology-mediated classrooms designed to encourage increased use of multimedia and computer-based resources in class has increased by 89 for a total of 169. An OCIS Report on Mediated Classrooms (Document 6.39) indicates that there are 82 smart classes with one PC in each for a total of 82 computers; 8% of the smart class PCs (7) have been replaced over last five years; and 92% smart class computers (75) are more than 5 years old. The remaining classrooms do not have computers, which requires faculty to bring laptops to class, yet the OCIS Faculty PC report indicates that only 28% of full-time faculty have laptops, adjunct faculty are not provided

laptops, and only 45% of the faculty indicate that their department laptops can be used in these rooms. According to OCIS, smart classrooms are being phased out, requiring all faculty to bring laptops to class.

Fig. 6.31 Computer Labs by Department 1 Departments # of Labs Computer Science; General Education 6 English Department 5 Library; Psychology; College of Business & Public Administration; Communication Disorders and 3 Deafness Design Department; Mathematics Department; Residence Life; Communication Department 2

Accounting; Athletics; Biology; Chemistry and Physics: Early Childhood; Geology and Meteorology; 1 Graphic Design; Media and Film; Middle School Education; EEO; Office of Computer and Information; Physical Education/Recreation; Project Adelante; Public Administration; Special Education; Theatre

The following departments have labs with older computers: General Education - 6 labs with 164 computers that are 5-6 years old; English Department - 5 labs with 124 computers that are 5-6 years old; Library -3 labs with 65 computers that are 5-6 years and 14 computers that are 3 years/younger; Computer Science - 6 labs with 126 computers that are 5-6 years old; and Middle School Education - 1 lab with 24 computers that are 6 to 8 years old. (Document 6.40: Report on computer labs, OCIS, June 2010)

Additional Technology-Mediated Rooms and Resources Conference and seminar rooms; academic technologies, such as Blackboard, Datatel, and Qualtrics; and extensive online databases are available to faculty on an ongoing basis.

Technology Services OCIS maintains classrooms and labs Monday through Saturday, serving day, evening, and weekend classes. The Department indicates that reporting the number and nature of faculty repair requests and queries is difficult and that an automated tracking system is in development. (Document 6.41: OCIS Report for Middle States, June 2010)

Fig. 6.32 provides a summary of service calls related to Blackboard, which are consistent with the documented growth in faculty use of the course management software

Fig. 6.32 OCIS Service Incidents per Year Year Number of Service Incidents Provided 2007 4,693 2008 4,887 2009 5,472 2010 (till May 26th) 2,589

Faculty report many network challenges as seen in Fig. 6.33, which OCIS provided to describe service trends.

Fig. 6.33 OCIS Work Order Trends by Type

Adjunct Faculty

Adjunct faculty members play an integral role in advancing Kean University‘s instructional, research, and service program goals. Since the last decennial review, the utilization of adjunct faculty has increased significantly, mirroring a nationwide trend in higher education. Although the majority (57%) of Kean adjunct faculty have been at the institution for five or more years, 200 to 300 adjunct faculty have been deactivated each year for the past five years. (Document 6.42: KUAFF Communication, SP 2010) This turnover results in enormous manpower hours to process and train new people. To address this challenge, in 2007, President Farahi approved a three-course load for adjuncts each semester to help reduce the large adjunct population, decrease turnover, and bring stability to the adjunct unit. Deans, however, approve adjunct faculty loads in their respective colleges and not all Deans permit the 3-course load.

According to the President of the adjunct faculty union, approximately one-eighth of the adjunct faculty would like to teach online courses, yet departments are reluctant to engage nonresident faculty in this activity. Also, according to the KUAFF President, the situation results in a drain of techno-savvy adjunct faculty from Kean to other colleges and universities, thus adding to the turnover rate. (Document 6.42)

Adjunct Faculty Support Systems Several support systems are in place to help adjunct faculty become connected to the University: new adjunct faculty orientation, professional development and training programs, awards for teaching excellence, and funding for special projects and programs. Two others—internal funding for research and scholarship and expert assistance with securing external funding—were discussed earlier in this chapter.

New Adjunct Faculty Orientation For the last nine years Kean Adjunct Faculty Federation (KUAFF), AFT Local 6024, and the Office of the VPAA have co-hosted an academic orientation (KUAFF President, personal communication, 2010), consisting of a one and a half hour session, which until recently had been held only in the fall semester. During the 2008-2009 academic year, fall and spring orientations were provided, and going forward, both will be held each year. (Document 6.43: Adjunct Faculty Handbook 2009-2010) Adjuncts are also included in various department and/or school/college of Education training events.

Professional Development and Training Adjunct faculty are welcome to attend all programs offered by CPD though they are not compensated for attending. By contract, negotiation of compensation is required for adjunct faculty to attend prescribed

professional development activities on campus. The only departments that provide training/professional development funds for adjunct faculty as a result of such negotiations are English and Communication. Presently, KUAFF is working with the VPAA on an incentive program to provide compensation for adjunct faculty who participate in training and professional development activities on campus.

Awards for Teaching Excellence and Funding for Special Projects and Programs The Presidential Excellence Awards for Distinguished Teaching, Scholarship, and Service are awarded annually. Adjunct faculty members who have served the institution for a minimum of three consecutive years are eligible to apply for two of the three awards available to faculty members: the Award for Distinguished Teaching and the Award for Distinguished Service. Award winners each receive a $1,000 check from the University Foundation. Each year since 2005, an adjunct faculty member has received the Presidential Excellence Award for Distinguished Teaching. Two adjuncts in the Fine Arts Department, two in the Department of Design, and one adjunct faculty member in the Physical Education, Recreation and Health Department have received this award. (Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs, personal communication, March 2, 2010)

The University Planning Council recommends special projects and programs for funding through the Quality First Initiatives (QFI). All members of the Kean University community are eligible to apply for these awards. Proposals must contain goals defined by the 2007-2012 Kean University Strategic Plan, which include: 1) ―Attracting the community to come to Kean University and 2) Outreach programs presented in the community.‖ (Document 6.44: University Planning Council, Kean University, 2010)

Last year, two adjuncts applied for QFI and both received funding. One project from the Department of Communication provided a day of workshops and activities for K-12 educators focused on helping teachers become more skillful presenters in the classroom. The second funded Initiative invited high school students in grades nine through twelve for a two-week musical theatre training program with the Music faculty. This year two adjunct faculty members applied for Quality First Initiative Funding, and one adjunct faculty member received an award for a summer music theatre institute for students in grades 8-11. (Chair, University Planning Council, personal communication, February 24, 2010)

The Role of Faculty in a Changing Institutional Context

As of summer 2010, the administration began implementing sweeping academic reorganization. (Document 6.4) This reorganization, proposed and approved within a few months‘ time, is intended to improve student outcomes and service quality and to provide fiscal savings. Although the administration consulted with the College Deans and requested advice from the Faculty Senate, it bypassed the curriculum procedures established by the Faculty Senate and sought no endorsement from the University Curriculum Committee, the General Education Committee, or the Senate itself. As a result, the changes being implemented are perceived as being imposed by the administration and exceeding the scope of changes undertaken in the past. Faculty survey comments (Appendix T) contain recurrent themes.

This is a moment when the challenge is clear. Faculty show themselves to be dedicated to their students and to the academic well-being of the University. The administration demonstrates its continuing commitment to the University‘s mission of excellence and accessibility. The daunting challenge is to maintain a model of academic integrity that accomplishes necessary cost-savings, student outcomes, and service goals.

Kean University complies with Standard 10. Detailed Strengths, Challenges, and Recommendations for this Standard are listed in Appendix A, pp. A-5 through A-7.

CHAPTER 7 EDUCATIONAL OFFERINGS (STANDARD 11) AND GENERAL EDUCATION (STANDARD 12)

Standard 11: Educational Offerings

Faculty Senate Records, Institutional Research Data, Registrar’s Records, the University Catalog, Deans’ and Departmental Reports as well as MS Data Collection Templates serve as primary data sources for this Standard.

Undergraduate Academic Programs

In an effort to meet the demands of increased enrollments, to reflect continuing trends in the disciplines, and to address market needs, departments within the colleges engage in ongoing program revisions, adjustments, and expansion. Today, the options available to Kean students include 48 undergraduate degree programs, 34 graduate programs, and 2 doctoral programs. Enriching these are the approximately 146 new undergraduate courses, degree options, revised courses and newly-created programs implemented over the last five years. (Document 7.1) Programmatic change and enhancements at the University since 2006 have outpaced information reported in the most recent Periodic Review Report. (Appendix K)

Program revision and/or program development, which is also discussed on p. 61, begins with the process of self-evaluation at the department level prescribed in the Curriculum Procedures. (Appendix U) Review initiates in the departmental level, progresses to the College Curriculum Committee, and moves on to UCC. University-level review is rigorous, involving extensive documentation, rationale, adherence to specified guidelines, and in the case of new programs, the report of an external consultant. Proposals must be approved by the UCC, Faculty Senate, VPAA, University President and Board of Trustees. (Document 7.2) New academic initiatives highlight Kean‘s responsiveness to trends, fulfill goals/objectives set forth in the strategic plan, and convey a commitment to student success.

College by college, the new educational offerings at the University over the past five years are:

College of Education Teacher of Students With Disabilities & P-3 Minor Program in French Studies Teacher of Students With Disabilities & K-5 Minor in Chinese Studies Teacher of Students With Disabilities & K-5 & 5-8 Certification Program in Teaching PSI Physics Certification Program in Teaching PSI Chemistry BA Earth Sci-Dual Certification for Teachers of BS Athletic Training Students with Disabilities & P-3 College of Humanities and Social Sciences BA in Communication: Media Option BA in Communication Public Relations Option BA in Communication: Film Option BA in Asian Studies College of Natural, Applied and Health Sciences BA in Biology Dual Certification for Teachers of BS Sustainability Science Students with Disabilities BA in Chemistry: Technical Sales & Marketing Joint Program: BS in Health Management Option BS Information Technology BS in Earth Science: Earth Systems Option BA Biology: BA/MS Physician Assistant Track BA Mathematics: Statistics Option College of Visual and Performing Arts BFA in Theater Design & Technology BM Bachelor in Music BFA in Theater Performance

The UCC also oversees the discontinuation of degrees, major programs, options, minors, collaterals, non- degree programs, joint programs, and education programs mandated by the State. Discontinuation of degree programs requires additional approvals from the President, Board of Trustees, President‘s Council, and the Commission on Higher Education. Over the past five years, more than 50 undergraduate offerings and 40 options were eliminated. (Document 7.3) As a result of this self-study, ―dead‖ courses were deleted from the system and the process for updating catalogues and registration bulletins is in revision.

Content/Rigor To evaluate the content and rigor of educational offerings, the working group reviewed program materials including departmental annual reports and program reviews, course syllabi, and major program guide sheets. Annual reports prepared by department chairs highlight faculty accomplishments in various areas including publication, presentations, community service, and academic/teaching activities. (Document 7.4)

In 2008, a policy for mandatory review of syllabi by Chairpersons/Coordinators was implemented to ensure the inclusion of learning outcomes, goals/objectives, and course and faculty information. Examination of syllabi for a randomly-selected number of sections indicated that patterns for stating course goals and expected learning outcomes upon course completion are inconsistent across disciplines and colleges. Methods for calculating grades, timelines for submitting course work, and the contact information/office hours for the faculty member were also clearly stated. (Document 7.5) In response to the MSCHE Chairperson/Coordinator survey, 86% reported that syllabi contained consistent course objectives regardless of the assigned instructor, and 54% reported reviewing syllabi of adjuncts prior to use to ensure continuity of learning goals and objectives. Submission/review of the syllabi is expected to ensure that goals and objectives are developed and provide a foundation for course implementation. (Document 7.6)

Undergraduate program guide sheets are readily found on the College websites and the Center for Academic Success website. Also, all students receive a copy of their respective guide sheets during their initial advisement and registration session at the University. Information regarding General Education and major program requirements is listed and available to students in order to establish a process of course completion and eventual attainment of a degree. Each student is assigned a faculty advisor in their major program and must meet with him/her each term to review course history, progress, and the proposed class schedule. (Document 7.7) University procedures call for a five-year program review process (p. 14), as stated earlier, been latent for some time.

Enrollment/Retention/Degrees Conferred Kean University aims to understand the factors that impact student enrollment and success. To this end, the University conducts periodic studies of external conditions, ―environmental scans,‖ to identify trends and potential challenges. (2002-2007 Strategic Plan, Appendix C)

All environmental scans completed over the past 10 years have pointed to the increased enrollments that Kean has experienced since 2005. Between 2005 and 2009, the number of students has increased, growing to 15,939 student enrollments for fall 2010. Academic programs have experienced both significant increases and decreases in enrollment over the past five years, influenced by market trends. (Document 7.8) Those experiencing significant increases include but are not limited to Accounting (45%), Speech, Language, Science (72%), Physical Education (63%), Media and film (425%), Biology 59%, Nursing Occupational Therapy (81%), Science and Technology (562%), and Industrial Design (58%). Programs with significantly lower enrollments over the period include but are not limited to Economics (-25%), Spanish (-25%), Telecommunication Information Technology (-44%), Graphic Communication (-27%) and Art History (-25%). Institutional Research data show that an increase in the number of degrees conferred did not correlate with increased enrollments. (Document 7.9)

The University has invested in a number of initiatives that support retention, and details about these are available in Chapter 5. In fall 2010, the University implemented the policy of required advisement for all students, placing registration restrictions on their accounts. (Document 7.7) This self study included a focus group for exploring students‘ advisement experiences. The 25-30 participants responded to a series of questions on the topic, discussing the dedicated faculty who spend time reviewing guide sheets and providing guidance while expressing concern about the number of advisors who spend limited time on their proposed class schedules and needs or lacked programmatic knowledge. (Document 7.10)

Field-Based Opportunities Kean University provides its students with many opportunities to prepare for the professional world through informal learning. Internships, study abroad experiences, online learning, and experiential learning are a few ways in which the students are enriched outside traditional approaches. Most significant is the Teaching Performance Center in the College of Education, whose mission is to ―facilitate systematic and on-going communication between teacher preparation programs and the partner schools/agencies in which pre-service educators are placed for field experience.‖ A Field Experience Advisory Committee meets regularly to provide guidance on matters that concern the planning, implementing and evaluating the field experience program. (Document 7.11)

Graduate Academic Programs

The Nathan Weiss Graduate College (NWGC) provides a variety of advanced degrees across the disciplines including two Doctoral Degree programs, two Professional Diploma Programs, 23 Certificate Programs and 32 Masters Degree programs. Enrollment in the fall of 2010 was 2,887. (Document 7.12)

Graduate programs vary in their housing within the University‘s organizational structure. Some report to their respective departments whereas others are part of the Graduate College. Coordinators oversee all graduate programs and are allocated overload credit to do so relative to the number of students enrolled in their respective programs. The academic reorganization currently underway holds implications for the Nathan Weiss Graduate College since it recommends the merging of some graduate programs.

Instructed by full-time faculty and adjunct faculty, graduate courses are distinguished from undergraduate courses through additional reading assignments including current literature and research, expectations of higher levels of critical thinking, original student research, and comprehensive/practicum/thesis requirements embedded in the courses. Faculty who teach graduate courses may also have an undergraduate course workload in the same discipline. In response to the Chairperson/Coordinator survey, 72% reported that undergraduate and graduate courses are taught separately and distinctly. In addition, 90% of Program Coordinators reported that full-time tenured faculty with specialized degree requirements (61%) and research/contributions to the field (57%) teach graduate courses. (Document 7.13)

A Graduate Council comprised of Program Coordinators provides regular feedback and works with the University Curriculum Committee to revise and/or create new programs (http://www.kean.edu/~gpsc/). The University introduced new graduate programs over the last five years. By college, they are as follows:

Nathan Weiss Graduate College Doctor of Psychology in Professional School & Executive Masters of Business Administration Family Psychology Executive MBA option Doctor of Education in Urban Leadership College of Business and Public Administration Master of Public Administration Master of Arts in Criminal Justice College of Education Masters in Art in Instruction and Curriculum MA in Teaching PSI Physics

MA in Instruction & Curriculum Option Bilingual MA in Teaching PSI Chemistry Certification Program in Infants and Toddlers Advanced Certificate in Autism Spectrum Disorders College of Humanities and Social Sciences MA in Holocaust Genocide Studies Graduate Certificate in Public Relations and Journalism Master of Sociology and Social Justice Master of English/Writing Studies College of Natural, Applied and Health Sciences MSN Option – School Nursing

Content/Rigor The working group employed the same strategies for reviewing the content and rigor of graduate offerings that they applied to undergraduate programs: examination of program materials including departmental annual reports and program reviews, course syllabi and guide sheets.

To follow current trends and respond to results of the environmental scan, the NJ Center for Science, Technology & Mathematics (NJCSTM) was created in 2004 as a new five year, combined bachelor/master degree program. Students earn the BS in Science & Technology at the end of the 4th year and then the Master‘s degree at the end of the 5th: either an MA in Instruction & Curriculum /Science & Tech Option or the MS in Science & Technology. In addition, since 2008, NCJSTM has offered a 4+4 B.S. /M.D. linkage program with Drexel University College of Medicine. (http://www.kean.edu/KU/New-Jersey-Center-for- Science-Technology-and-Mathematics)

NWGC launched the University‘s first doctoral degree programs in 2008: the five-year Psychology Doctorate (Psy.D.) in combined school and clinical psychology and the 90-credit Doctor of Education in Urban Leadership program (Ed.D.). In addition, the Department of Educational Leadership is currently developing on-line coursework for the Supervisor‘s Certification Program as well as the Principal‘s Certification Program. As of fall 2008, the Educational Leadership Department‘s academic offerings, degrees and certifications have been qualified to grant certification in compliance with NJ Administrative Code 6A:9-12.3-4 by the New Jersey Department of Education.

Due to increased use of and knowledge about technology, many students enrolled in the graduate college benefit from alternate modes of course delivery. The Communication Disorders and Deafness program offered six online courses, two new, in fall 2009. One was a pilot that utilized real time video and audio. The program also offers courses through interactive television, such as online seminars utilizing Skype. Students in the program are able to monitor their work, course learning outcomes, and their status in the class through a web-based tool known as Student Assessment and Management System (SAMS). The varied learning opportunities the Communication and Deafness program provides offer quality instruction as well as academic support. (Document 7.14)

Students in the Counselor Education program access a web-based program for taking pre- and post- self examinations as part of internships and externships. The evaluation of practicum/internship supervisors is also web-based. The new MBA Global Management degree programs, including those on the main campus and offsite, and the present pursuit of EFMD Accreditation for the Global MBA program have been successful. The College of Education has created a new program in Special Education whereby students who successfully complete a certification program can continue to the master‘s program. (Document 7.15)

Enrollment/Degrees Conferred The NWGC has its own Admissions Office; general admissions standards for most programs include a 3.0 Grade Point Average, completion of standardized tests and in some cases, submission of reference letters and/or a departmental interview process. Indeed, all applicants with less than a 3.0 undergraduate GPA are

only considered upon special consultation with the College Dean. Several programs, namely certification programs, do not require standardized exams for admission. (Document 7.15) New admissions standards, such as the newly-established minimum GPA of 3.20 for graduate studies in Speech-Language Pathology, have resulted in better prepared graduate students, a priority of the past NWGC Dean.

Educational Offerings at Kean Ocean Additional Location

Kean has established an additional educational location on the campus of Ocean County College to provide higher education in that region beyond the level of the associate's degree. Under the supervision of the Acting Associate VPAA, students completing their associate's degree can continue their studies by pursuing a Kean Bachelor's degree and completing Kean courses on the OCC campus. Kean also offers courses at OCC in selected Master's Degree programs for those with a bachelor's degree. (Document 7.16)

The Bachelor's degree programs Kean delivers at Ocean include Accounting, Computer Science, Criminal Justice, Elementary Education, English, Finance, Graphic Design, History, Management Science, Marketing, Nursing, Physical Education and Health, Public Administration, Psychology, Sociology, and Special Education. All courses offered there are the approved courses that run on the Union campus, and the chairpersons on Kean‘s main campus in Union oversee the extension of their programs at Ocean. Students who have already completed their associate's degrees have their OCC courses evaluated on a case- by-case basis and matched as closely as possible to the requirements for Kean degrees. This is the same process all students undergo as per the Transfer Agreement. (Appendix O)

Content/Rigor Kean Ocean follows the same academic policies, procedures and practices as the Union location does. According to the Chairperson/Coordinator survey, 48% of courses offered at the Union location are offered at Ocean; 76% reported using the same syllabus at Kean Ocean as sections offered at Union; and 84% indicated the same objectives are used for courses offered at both locations. Chairpersons wishing to create, modify, or eliminate courses for Kean Ocean must follow UCC guidelines.

New students entering OCC follow detailed program guide sheets that specify the exact OCC courses to take in order to fulfill the requirements of both their OCC associate's degrees and their Kean bachelor's degrees. A review of guide sheets indicates a significant difference in course requirements between Union and Ocean campus. As per the articulation agreement, approved courses must be equivalent to those courses offered at the Union campus. Concerns regarding guide sheets stem from approved courses that must be accepted per the Transfer Agreement but might not prepare students to meet major course requirements. (Refer to Chapter 4, p. 38, for further discussion about this issue.)

Enrollment Kean Ocean was implemented in fall 2006 with an undergraduate enrollment of 274 and graduate enrollment of 92 students. Over the past five years enrollment has increased to 1,322 undergraduate and 193 graduate students. (Document 7.17) Students accepted for admission at Kean Ocean are not restricted from taking classes at the Union campus. In addition, students who regularly attend classes at the Union location may register for courses at Ocean. Students native to either campus sometimes register for courses at both locations for convenience, class time preferences, or as a consequence of changing their majors. As a result, Kean Ocean enrollments are determined by any given semester‘s registrations for Kean Ocean courses rather than the number of students admitted to the Kean Ocean location. (Document 7.18) Further information about Kean Ocean as an approved addition location is available in Chapter 8.

Kean University complies with Standard 11. Detailed Strengths, Challenges, and Recommendations for this Standard are listed in Appendix A, pp. A-7 though A-9.

Standard 12: General Education

Data sources for this standard include Institutional Research Data, the University Catalog, the General Education (GELAP) Program Document, the GE Annual Report, and the Annual Report of the Center for Academic Success.

The content and form of the General Education (GE) Program continues to evolve, demonstrating Kean‘s responsiveness to shifting needs. Before 1997, the GE Program at Kean divided 51-53 GE credits into Common Core and Breadth Requirements and the Task Force on General Education and Learning Assistance Programs (GELAP) designed a conceptual framework with 51-55 credits divided among Foundation, Distribution, Concentration, and Capstone courses. The GE Program‘s organizational structure changed in 2004 when it began reporting to the newly created Center for Academic Success (CAS) instead of directly to the Office of the Provost. The program was again modified in 2008 due to the passage of the Lampitt Bill (Appendix O), known as the Comprehensive State-Wide Transfer Agreement.

According to Trends and Emerging Practices in General Education (Document 7.19, p.1) prepared by Hart Research Associates, as of May 2009, 56% of administrators state that General Education had increased as a priority with 89% of institutions in some stage of assessing or modifying their GE Programs. Kean University is among this group. The 2010 proposed academic restructuring recognizes that improvement of GE merits undivided attention, due in part to the work of the Middle States Self Study Steering Committee. The School of General Studies creates a unique academic home for General Education. Using this reorganization as a catalyst for change, the Office of Academic Affairs, the Office of Accreditation and Assessment, and the GE Program have collaborated to generate a GE Strategic Plan. Released in August 2010, it includes a revision of the GE mission, more focused learning goals for select GE courses, creation of a Blackboard community, rebranding efforts, communication strategies, and a comprehensive assessment schedule. The plan also includes recommendations for the formation of a General Education Advisory Board to support the efficacy of the new School of General Studies.

The GE Program has used the following programmatic benchmarks since 1999 to guide its undergraduate students to proficiency along a prescribed timeline: . GE Foundations Requirements . GE Disciplinary & Interdisciplinary Distribution Requirements . GE Major Capstone course

Foundations Courses

Transition to Kean, GE 1000 Emphasis on the first year experience began at Kean over 30 years ago, and the institution recognized the importance of codifying its first-year experience when it founded the Freshman Center in 1985. Kean became a participant in John Gardner‘s Foundations of Excellence© (FOE) in 2009, and that process has produced rich data for improvement of the first year experience for first-time full-time and transfer students. (Document 7.20) FOE examined Kean‘s GE Program, highlighted general trends, and exemplified the need for these sorts of reviews to be incorporated into university-wide assessment plans.

After going through several iterations, the current course, commonly referred to as T2K, is a one-credit, once-a-week class taught voluntarily by full-time (FT) faculty and staff. A series of embedded assignments unify the expected outcomes across sections, with an annual instructor orientation and professional development experience provided in May for the following year‘s teachers. The 2008-2009 GE Annual Report cites a T2K faculty comprised of 10 FT/adjunct faculty and 38 professional staff representing a broad cross-section of units. The completion passing rate for GE 1000 over the past 5 years is 80.45%. (Document 7.21)

Students enrolled in GE 1000 have the benefit of a peer to assist them in acclimation to life at Kean, the Academic and Instructional Mentor (AIM), which was renamed General Education Mentor Students (GEMS) in FA 2010 when oversight of the group was shifted from CAS to the GE Program. Since summer 2005, more than 90% of T2K students found their AIM accessible when seeking advice and effective in motivating them towards student success, serving as a positive role model, and playing an essential role in Transition to Kean. (Document 7.22)

Foundation Courses: English and Math Working with Admissions, the GE Program uses Accuplacer computerized tests in Reading Comprehension, Essay, and Elementary Algebra to determine first-year students‘ proficiency in the knowledge and skills needed to successfully complete English and Mathematics Foundation Courses. Several placement options and programs have been developed to provide necessary remediation for students ineligible for placement into ENG 1030 or the MATH course specified by the major.

The following courses satisfy the ENG 1030 requirement: ENG 1031/1032 (a six-credit, one-semester version of College Composition) ENG 1033/1034 (a six-credit, two-semester version of College Composition) ENG 1300/1430 (a six-credit, two-semester ESL version of College Composition for Non-Native Speakers).

In some cases, students may be required to complete reading remediation: CS 0409 (Basic Reading Skills) or CS 0412 (Introduction to Academic Reading)

The completion passing rate for ENG 1030 is 81% over the past 5-years, with an over-all passing rate of 68%, leaving an attrition rate of 13%. Passing is defined as a grade of C or better.

As outlined in the 2008-2009 GE Annual Report (Document 7.23), the Composition Coordinator implemented changes culminating in the spring 10 program-wide use of portfolios for summative assessment of ENG 1030 course goals. English Composition classes at Kean University share materials/assignments through CompLinks and Web-Board. Composition faculty also utilize the writing website on Kean‘s home page as well as MyCompLab, which allows peers and faculty to review and comment online, utilize online and telephone tutorials, and study writing prompts. These resources allow students‘ diverse learning styles to flourish. Gradual steps have been taken to develop a comprehensive assessment system, including a rubric and descriptors and professional development to familiarize faculty with methods and procedures. The rubric used to assess pre-semester diagnostic essays is also used to evaluate the end-of-course electronic portfolios; the rubric itself has been refined on several occasions. Benchmark portfolios were identified to prepare for the programmatic assessment activities funded for summer 2010. (Document 7.24) Most initial technological challenges were solved with OCIS so that the submission of the e-portfolios is now both student- and scorer-friendly. Since the reorganization of the School of General Studies was announced, the Composition Coordinator has been working closely with the Office of Assessment, giving the GE Program and the Office of Accreditation and Assessment the support needed to prepare the GE Strategic Plan.

From 2002 to 2008, the following equivalent courses fulfilled the mathematics Foundation Requirement: MATH 1000 (Algebra for College Students, three-credits, one semester), MATH 1001/1002 (a six-credit, one-semester version of Algebra for College Students), MATH 1003/1004 (a six-credit, two-semester version of Algebra for College Students), and MATH 1051 (a discontinued course, College Algebra).

The completion passing rate for MATH 1000 is 67.43% over the past 5-years, with an over-all passing rate of 54.43% and an attrition rate of 13%. Passing is currently defined as D or greater.

There are issues of concern with the mathematics component of the GE Program, reflected in the most comprehensive analysis of student performance in GE mathematics requirements: MATH 1000 Outcomes, FA00-FA09. (Document 7.25) This report notes that during that time frame only 53% of all MATH 1000 students received a C or better for the course. In response to its findings, the report recommends a thorough evaluation of the course, including content, concept sequencing, and overall objectives concluding that ―the faculty must utilize best practices…to create benchmarks and other indicators of success, because continuing to offer this course while knowing these outcomes does not serve the best interest of the students or the University.‖ As of this writing, there has been no representation from the Department of Mathematics at spring/summer 2010 retreats, workshops, or planning meetings to begin this process in conjunction with the GE Strategic Plan and the establishment of the School of General Studies.

Foundation Courses: A-TEAM (Adjuncts Teaching English and Math) Over the past five years, FTFT students needing remediation has ranged from 67-71%, which when compared to 8 peer institutions, ranks Kean second. (Appendix L) Kean also has the second highest cut scores for students to test out of remediation. Kean is committed to giving its students the tools needed to meet the goals of the GE Program. An example of this is Adjuncts Teaching English and Math, or A- TEAM, an initiative providing students increased contact with course instructors through individualized tutoring plans. Started in fall 09, A-TEAM targets sections of foundational ENG and MATH courses with adjunct specialists hired to supplement traditional class time with tutoring intended to improve pass rates.

When considering A-TEAM data, MATH 1000 Outcomes, FA00- FA09 states: ―…while early results are promising, no conclusive evidence can be made at this point.‖ (Document 7.25) In response to English Composition data, the Composition Coordinator and Managing Assistant Director for A-TEAM state, ―While pass rates did not change, the students in these sections seemed to have become stronger writers .… This program also benefits students by getting them into a pattern of regular participation in supplemental instruction. They will not consider getting help a sign of weakness but a normal part of the learning process….‖ (Document 7.26)

Tallies from Tutor Trac indicate that 37% of the 2009-10 visits for all CAS programs were from A-TEAM participants, with 7983 A-TEAM visits (Document 7.27). When surveyed, 100% of MATH A-TEAM participants and 88% of ENG agreed that coaching from an A-TEAM professor helped them to earn higher grades in the courses (Documents 7.28 and 7.29). In spring10, the average number of tutoring visits for the 126 students enrolled in MATH 0901 was 8.48, indicating that students are seeing the value in using the A- TEAM support system. University funds cover support costs of $14.97/student for each tutoring session.

Foundation Courses: New Jersey State-Wide Transfer Agreement In response to the Comprehensive State-Wide Transfer Agreement (Appendix O; Refer to Chapter 4, pp.37-38), the Faculty Senate General Education Committee and the GE Program conducted a campus- wide Academic Revision, reviewing, adapting, and approving every undergraduate guide sheet in less than eighteen months. Revisions affecting the GE Program include the following:

Concentrations are no longer a requirement of the GE Program. Each academic program therefore reassigned the current six credits for the concentration courses on their respective guide sheets.

The Math 1000 series was eliminated as a required course for all students. Two 1000-level credit bearing GE-approved Distribution MATH or CPS courses are to be required by individual departments and programs, selected in consultation with the Mathematics Department.

Foundation Course: COMM 1402 Speech Communication as Effective Citizenship COMM 1402 (Speech Communication as Critical Citizenship) became a GE Foundation course as a result of the 1997 GELAP Task Force. The GE Annual Report 2008-2009 includes an appendix authored by Director of the Basic Course/Communication which addresses course-embedded criteria used to evaluate student performance of two 7-minute speeches. Analysis of fall 2009 data revealed that student growth between the first speech and the second was significant or highly significant in 7 out of 10 criteria. This assessment will motivate COMM 1402‘s efforts to enhance teachers‘ abilities to instruct, evaluate, and improve students‘ outlining skills. Over the past five years, COMM 1402 has had the highest completion passing rate of the Foundation courses (87.08%), but also one of the lowest course retention rates (75%).

Foundation Course: Research and Technology, GE 202X Research and Technology provides an introduction to the research process, including an oral presentation and formal research paper with an emphasis on the use of computer technology to design, investigate, and report research activities. The course is offered in six versions (GE 2021-26, thus GE 202X), each designed to align with one of the Colleges, allowing students with similar majors to register for the same section and instructors to provide field-specific research resources and methodologies. GE 2026 is reserved for undecided majors.

On average over the past 5 years, adjunct faculty taught 88% of GE 202X courses (Document 7.21). The GE Program observes and evaluates instructors annually. Recent actions to improve GE 202X include creating college-specific sections and design of a Blackboard community for the course with scheduled professional development sessions for the instructors. In May 2008, a textbook review workshop resulted in the recommendation to use a customized textbook. However, after two years of use and the collection of feedback, the GE Program decided to revert to a non-custom version for all sections in 2010-2011. Recommendations in the GE Strategic Plan specifically address the need to improve GE202X by increasing the number of FT faculty teaching it and by building communication among departments, GE 202X instructors, and the GE Program. Seventy percent of surveyed Program Coordinators and Chairs believe the values, abilities, and skills emphasized in GE learning goals are integrated with and reinforced by instructors teaching GE 1000, GE 202X, and the Capstone courses, with 61% believing the majors‘ goals are embedded in the GE course sequence. (Document 7.13)

Foundation Courses: Statistics A basic statistical values and correlation analysis was conducted in spring 2010 for GE Foundation courses taught from spring 2005 to fall 2009. (Document 7.23) GE Foundation courses studied included ENG 1030, GE 1000, GE (2021-2026), MATH (1010, 1016, 1030 1044 and 1054), MATH 1000, MATH (1001- 1004) and COMM 1402. Completion passing rate is defined by the Comprehensive State-wide Transfer Agreement as the grade of D or better. However, certain major requirements specify a passing grade higher than a D. For some students the minimum grade for successful completion of the course is as high as a B.

Fig. 7.1 Completion Passing Rates: Foundation Courses, SP05 – FA09. Completion Passing Rate % with D or better COMM 1402 87.08% GE 2021 – 26 85.59% MATH 1010, 1016, 1030, 1044, 1054 82.42% ENG 1030 81.13% GE 1000 80.45% MATH 1001 – 04 70.62% MATH 1000 67.43% Source: Document 7.22

Distribution Courses

According to its mission, the GE Program aims to facilitate student growth throughout the college years and into the workplace. In addition to the five Foundation Courses introducing GE expectations in the first semesters of college, Kean‘s GE Program includes Distribution Courses in Humanities, Social Sciences, Science & Mathematics, and Health & Physical Education. (Document 7.30) The roster of Approved Distribution Courses represents 31 departments, plus at least one course option in each of the four areas designated as Interdisciplinary. The Department of Physical Education, Recreation, and Health provides 20 dance, gymnastics, and team sports courses that are also GE-approved. (Document 7.31)

Distribution Courses: Statistics A basic statistical values and correlation analysis was conducted for sample GE Distribution courses taught from spring 2005 to fall 2009. (Documents 7.20 and 7.32) The GE Distribution courses included in this study consist of all GE-approved courses taught during the time frame by the following departments: Biology (BIO), Chemistry (CHEM), Economics (ECO), Art History (AH), Italian (ITAL), Psychology (PSY), Spanish (SPAN), and Theatre (THE). For the purposes of this analysis, the completion passing rate is the grade of D or better.

Fig. 7.2 Completion Passing Rates: Distribution Courses, SP2005 – FA2009 Completion Passing Rate % with D or better THE 1000, 1100 89.93% PSY 1000, 1005 88.17% BIO 1000, 1200, 2402 87.77% SPAN 1102, 2102 85.84% ITAL 1102, 2102 85.61% AH 1700, 1701 83.13% ECO 1000, 1020, 1021 82.06% CHEM 1010, 1030, 1083, 1084, 1200 75.96% Source: Document 7.23

There is less variance in the completion rates within the Distribution courses (13.97%) than in the Foundation courses (19.65%). However, the use of D as a passing grade is just as problematic for studying success in the Distribution courses as it is for evaluating the Foundation courses. Also similar to the situation with Foundation courses, grades higher than a D are required by some departments, and there has been no monitoring of student success in achieving necessary grades in a timely manner.

Course Retention Rates: Foundation and Distribution Courses

The percentage range of students who withdraw from Foundation courses (10-36%) is similar to the range for Distribution courses (18-30%). (Document 7.33)

Additional data analysis is needed before conclusions can be drawn about Kean‘s withdrawal rates, non- completers, and students who stay in the class but receive a D.

Data Analysis: Foundation/Distribution Courses and FT/PT Faculty

Analysis of data sets from Foundation and Distribution courses demonstrates that there is no meaningful statistical difference between passing rates in courses taught by FT faculty compared to passing rates of courses taught by adjunct faculty. (Document 7.21) This outcome is contrary to the common perception at Kean which assumes adjunct faculty are less successful in achieving course goals than FT faculty. However, grades are assigned by individual instructors, and grading standards could vary greatly as a

result. A more effective way for comparing full-time and adjunct faculty teaching is needed. Using pass rates as the sole criterion in comparisons is not conclusive.

Professional Development for GE Instructors and Support of GE Coordinators The success of department and/or GE course coordinators in functioning effectively relative to the Program‘s overall mission is inconsistent. Challenges may prevent a department/GE coordinator from performing tasks essential to a robust GE Program: initiating/maintaining assessment systems; designing relevant professional development activities; analyzing data; securing needed resources; communicating with the GE Program; and supervising course improvement plans.

The English Composition Coordinator (FT faculty) and the Managing Assistant for Transition to Kean (FT staff) are the most visible and active contributors to the GE agenda. Other academic departments lack effective coordination due to internal debate over assignment of these responsibilities, departmental agendas vying for valuable faculty time/effort, the absence of a coordinator with the needed administrative skills, and/or colleagues who are non-compliant with GE policies and requests. The situation suffers from the absence of resources and reasonable compensation for the time faculty members spend serving in this capacity. The GE Annual Report is a document of limited value due to the varying degrees of departmental program review and data analysis. The Report contains several appendices prepared out of necessity by the Director of General Education, not the departmental coordinators.

Faculty Senate’s GE Committee

The Faculty Senate organizes a standing GE Committee consisting of both elected and appointed voting members as well as ex officio non-voting members. The responsibilities of the Committee‘s Standing Charge include facilitating professional development that supports the mission of General Education, overseeing and reviewing the mechanisms for evaluating the curriculum of all program components, reporting these results to the faculty and appropriate administrative offices, and consulting with departments and disciplines about assessment criteria and results throughout all levels of the General Education curriculum. (Document 7.34)

The Committee‘s minutes from the past five years reveal that these essential tasks were largely overlooked and that its recommendations were slow to emerge and/or not implemented. (Document 7.35) For example, the Faculty Senate Chair met with the Committee in October 2009, asking for suggestions to update its charge; the most recent draft is dated March 14, 2000. At the close of 2009-2010, this work remained incomplete since the Committee‘s agenda was filled with time-consuming course approval actions. With the creation of the School of General Studies with its own Executive Director and the GE Advisory Board, the future role of the GE Committee needs to be redefined.

Major Departments (Disciplines) and GE

A recurring topic of concern is the efficacy of the Capstone, or senior seminar, as part of the GE Program though housed within the majors departments. There is limited evidence of collaboration between the departments and the GE Program to ensure that each major provides a Capstone experience in compliance with the GE mission, nor does there appear to be significant assessment work in the capstone course of many departments. According to the chair and program coordinator survey, 71% of respondents reported that their department or program did not have mechanisms in place to regularly assess the effectiveness of their major capstone courses. (Document 7.13)

A disconnect between departments and the GE Program is further seen in additional survey responses showing a lack of consensus and support for the GE Program.

49% of chairs and coordinators use current mechanisms in place to supply feedback to the GE Program. 58% of chairs and program coordinators responded positively (39 % agreeing, 19% strongly agreeing) that the integrity of the major discipline is maintained within the GE course framework. That leaves another 42% unsure or disapproving of GE‘s ability to maintain the integrity of the discipline within the GE course framework. 61% of chairs and program coordinators believe that integrity of the major is maintained by the abilities of instructors to integrate discipline-specific values, abilities, and skills while teaching GE 1000, GE 2020X, and the Capstone.

Chairs and program coordinators expressed the following opinions about the GE/major relationship when asked about connections between completion of GE requirements and success in the programs they administer: 54% report that the GE program sufficiently prepares students for successful completion of the programs they administer. 60% acknowledged that the minimum grade requirements for GE courses ensure student success in the programs they coordinate. 62% felt that students complete GE requirements in a manner appropriate to the course sequencing for the program they administer.

Steps have already been envisioned to improve communication between the GE program and the majors, including regularly scheduled reports to be filed by Executive Directors/Deans articulating themes emerging from data collection, outlining research needed to guide programmatic improvement, identifying resources and challenges, and setting future goals for GE and the major.

Administration and GE

Three major factors have begun to alter the General Education landscape at Kean: 1) The hiring of the Director of Assessment 2) Implementation of the approved plan for Reorganizing Academic Affairs, and 3) Inclusion of GE in the 2010–2014 Mission, Goals, and Objectives, or ―Action Plan,‖ authored by the Office of Academic Affairs.

Kean‘s first Director of Assessment joined the staff in February 2010. The office has made swift progress in mapping out instruments for assessing GE outcomes including the following: Project Sails (Information Literacy), for fall 2010 piloting and to be repeated every fall thereafter Math Pre-/Post-, an institutional tool for ad hoc use starting with a pilot in fall 2010 Writing Skills Rubric, an institutional tool for ad hoc use starting with a pilot in fall 2010 ETS Proficiency Profile (formerly the M.A.P.P.), assessing proficiency in critical thinking, reading, writing and mathematics in the context of humanities, social sciences and natural sciences, will focus on academic skills developed in General Education courses rather than subject knowledge taught. College Assessment of Academic Proficiency, a battery of assessments for gradual phase in with pilots through fall 2011 until CAAP Critical Thinking, CAAP Reading, and CAAP Critical Writing are distributed on a regular basis.

Several proposals in the Academic Restructuring and subsequent actions significantly affect the GE Program, including the following: The General Education Program will be housed in the College of Humanities and Social Sciences

and re-named the School of General Studies (SGS) with its own Executive Director (also the Director of General Education) who reports directly to the Dean of the CHSS. The School of General Studies will coordinate GE Foundation courses in Mathematics and English Composition, with some faculty reassignment and affiliate appointments. The A-TEAM model will continue to be studied as a possible format for additional sections of Foundation courses in Mathematics and English Composition. The ESL Program, which offers course work equivalent to Composition, will be afforded the same resources and support as Composition through the School of General Studies. Programs in a teach-out period would be housed within School of General Studies. Remedial and 1000-level Composition and Mathematics sections could be offered during summer II. While there will still be remedial sections offered in the fall and summer I, to the greatest extent possible, newly-entering students should complete required Composition and Mathematics courses during summer II, perhaps as a condition of admission in the fall. Based on performance in summer II remedial courses, students would then move into credit-bearing courses in the fall semester, thus increasing their chances of graduating in four years.

Significant gatherings of key stakeholders in GE met promptly following the release of the plan for reorganizing Academic Affairs in retreats and workshops held on May 7, June 17, July 1, and July 14, 2010. Agendas included the revision of the GE Mission Statement; evaluation of the knowledge, skills, and values featured in Kean‘s GE courses; analysis of GE course objectives; and initial preparation of a GE Strategic Plan. The Director of Assessment has set high expectations for SGS, including a rebranding intended to change perceptions about GE at Kean. It is hoped that the GE Program might lead the campus in the implementation of assessment and in making changes to improve student learning.

The Office of Academic Affairs ―Action Plan‖ for 2010-2014 identifies five Goals intended to improve Kean‘s ability to carry out its mission. (Document 7.36) Goal 3, ―to ensure that all students receive a quality general education,‖ is mapped with five objectives, corresponding assessment measures, and a timeline for completion. If Goal 3 is achieved, there will be a five year calendar of assessment for all GE courses, with rubrics to assess them, on-going professional development for GE instructors, an increase in the number of FT faculty teaching GE courses, and benchmarks identified through 2014 to chart progress towards these objectives.

Kean University complies with Standard 12. Detailed strengths, challenges, and recommendations for this Standard are available in Appendix A, pp. A-9 through A-10.

CHAPTER 8 RELATED EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES (STANDARD 13)

Institutional Research Data, Interviews, institutional documents, and MS Data Collection Templates provide data for this Standard. Introduction

This chapter is emblematic of some of the institution‘s greatest successes and most difficult challenges as it aspires to provide world-class education. Commentary highlights the University‘s rapid demographic expansion into areas of need such as Ocean, Somerset, and Hunterdon Counties, which have been dramatically successful, and various agreements with Chinese educational institutions, which may eventually lead to the creation of a campus in the Far East. Online Learning, Study Abroad, and TraveLearn courses are an ever expanding part of the curriculum, and this review focuses on the efforts to monitor and incorporate these experiences into the mainstream of the University. One of the greatest challenges remains the basic skills courses reviewed in Chapter 7 and students‘ opportunities for success. This formidable challenge relates to the heart of the University‘s mission and is a centerpiece in the recently announced Reorganization Plan. (Appendix F)

University goals that pertain to this chapter are clearly set forth in its mission statement, which notes that Kean seeks to provide ―excellence in... academic support services necessary to assure its socially, linguistically, and culturally diverse students the means to reach their full potential, including students from academically disadvantaged backgrounds, students with special needs, and adults returning to or entering higher education.‖ At the same time, the University sees itself as ―a major resource for regional advancement‖ through collaboration with ―business, labor, government, and the arts, as well as educational and community organizations‖ in providing the region with ―opportunities for continuous learning.‖ (Appendix B: Kean University Mission Statement) The University‘s ability to meet these aspects of its mission is dependent upon its success in communicating the range of academic opportunities available at Kean.

Basic Skills

A number of courses within the GE sequence help incoming Kean students develop basic skills. Placement tests in reading comprehension, writing, and math determine students‘ level of preparation.

Students demonstrating a need for additional instruction in reading comprehension are required to take either CS 0409, Basic Reading Skills or CS 0412, Introduction to Academic Reading (both non-college- credit). CS 0412, Introduction to Academic Reading, is offered as a ―paired course‖ only that is taken in conjunction with a designated college-level content course so that students can apply skills to content.

Placement testing in writing determines the format of College Composition a student should take: ENG 1030—a traditional 3-credit college level course; ENG 1031/1032—an extended six-credit-hour format of the course for students needing additional class time to develop writing skills in a single semester; and ENG 1033/1034—an extended six-credit-hour format over two consecutive semesters. Students demonstrating the need for developmental math instruction are required to take MATH 0901, Basic Algebra, a course designed to prepare them for further college-level mathematics courses.

The charts below illustrate the number of first-time freshmen needing remediation from 2005 through 2009. (Document 8.1: Institutional Profiles, 2004-2005, 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008, and 2008-2009) Basic Skills programs are important for a significant number of Kean students.

Fig. 8.1: Number of First-Time Freshmen Enrolled in Remediation (Basic Skills) Courses.

1500

1000 # in Reading Remediation 500 # in Writing Remediation 0 # in Elem. Algebra Total # in Remediation

Source: Institutional Profiles, 2004-2009, Office of Institutional Research

Collectively, the basic skills courses impact a significant percentage of Kean University students:

Fig. 8.2: Total Number of First-Time Freshmen Requiring Remediation in at Least One Subject. Academic Year # of First-Time Freshmen # Needing Remediation % Needing Remediation 2004-2005 1310 921 70% 2005-2006 1432 1012 71% 2006-2007 1422 1011 71% 2007-2008 1447 968 67% 2008-2009 1418 961 67.8% 2009-2010 1518 1015 66.9% Source: Institutional Profiles, 2004-2009, Office of Institutional Research

With roughly 70% of the Kean student body enrolled in one or more remedial course, basic skills is an integral part of the curriculum. Success in the courses is critical to retention and graduation.

Fig. 8.3: Pass/Fail Rates in Basic Skills Courses, 2008-2009

100 Pass 80 60 Fail 40 20 0

Source: GE Annual Report, 2008-2009

Repeat failures in basic skills courses remain unacceptably high (Document 8.2: General Education Annual Report, 2008-2009), and a number of initiatives are underway to address shortcomings. See Chapter 7.

Honors and Enrichment

Kean‘s offerings include programs to challenge its best students. Biological Sciences, Geology and Meteorology, Music, Political Science, Psychology, and Public Administration broadly, though not uniformly, include honors sections of major course requirements, including senior capstone seminars. Students participating in these enjoy opportunities to conduct original research projects and write theses under the close direction of faculty advisors. Most of the programs have no published criteria for admission, retention, enrollment, or completion.

Keeping with the University‘s goal to provide a world-class education to its growing student body, the development of a university-wide honors program is currently in progress under the leadership of the Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs. (Document 8.3: Honors Program Proposal). The proposed program will be housed in the Office of the Academic Affairs and run concurrently with the departmental programs already in existence, provided common curricular standards are established to maintain rigor. Students participating in the honors program will follow an honors General Education curriculum and receive advisement from the Honors Director through the end of their second year, after which advisement will take place in major departments. Within their majors, honors students will complete junior and senior research projects as well as senior capstone seminars. At this time, the primary challenges to implementation center around course staffing, funding for the position of Honors Director, and the physical space for housing the program. (Document 8.4: Faculty Senate White Paper Report: Academics at Kean University, Ad Hoc Committee, April 21, 2009)

Other enrichment programs are available at Kean. For example, the New Jersey Center for Science, Technology, and Mathematics, as new home to the New Jersey Academy of Science (NJAS), conducts science outreach activities for scientists, teachers, and students. In April 2010, it hosted the 55th Annual NJAS Meeting. Also, Kean University offers a growing number of summer camps for children aged 6 to 18, thus utilizing its outstanding facilities for outreach to the broader community and prospective students. Summer 2010 outreach offerings included the Liberty Hall Museum History Day Camps for children ages 8-12; various arts programs; Camp Premiere Program for Aspiring Stage Artists for students aged 11-14 and 15-18; the Department of Theatre‘s Summer Musical Theatre Institute; and the Robert Busch School of Design three-week Design Camp for students aged 15 to 18. Kean University Athletics offers volleyball, lacrosse, and baseball camps. The University, in partnership with organizations such as Champions Science Adventure, Eldridge Overton Educational Programs, and American String Teachers Association, offers science camps, Model United Nations and debate camps, and the New Jersey Chamber Music Institute.

The University is committed to reaching out to disadvantaged students in struggling school districts. Project Adelante works with at-risk Latino students, grades 6 to 12, in the Perth Amboy, Passaic, Elizabeth, and Plainfield school districts. The Program offers regular math, science and English as a Second Language classes during the summer and on Saturdays. Tutoring is provided to students as needed throughout the year as well. Most recently, Project Adelante served 135 students from the four districts during summer 2010 and 164 in summer 2009. For the whole of fiscal year 2010, Project Adelante served 237 students. Of the 2010 graduating senior class in the Program, 11 were admitted to at Kean University as freshmen. Through May 2010, Adelante served a strong parental component. The parents of the Adelante participants came to Kean every Saturday to take ESL and citizenship classes. Established in 1988, the Program was funded by the NJ Commission on Higher Education, the 4 school districts, and Kean University through June 30, 2010, and is currently funded by the four districts and Kean University.

The NJAS meeting and summer camps affirm the role that the University, in developing unparalleled facilities like the Harwood Arena, Enlow Recital Hall, the new STEM Building, and the Liberty Hall Museum, can and is playing in the intellectual and cultural life of the larger community.

Career Development and Advancement

Career Development and Advancement is an established office that describes itself as ―The Network That Connects You With Your Future.‖ The Center assists students in preparing to compete in today's changing job market. The Center maintains information on the latest career resources, techniques and strategies designed to meet the needs of our diverse student population. Career Development offers workshops on Resume Writing, Interview Preparation, Job Search Skills, How to Choose a Major, and other appropriate topics. The Program also hosts Career Fairs and Teacher Job Fairs. All information is available on the Center‘s attractive user-friendly website (http://www.kean.edu/~career/index.html), which also includes a Career Planning Guide and allows employers to post job openings. In fall 2009 alone, 2,670 students utilized the range of services the Program offers.

Additional Locations

According to the Kean University 2007-2012 Strategic Plan (Appendix C): ―The development of remote educational sites is a recent initiative designed to make Kean University available to a larger population of potential students. Kean has developed partnerships with several of New Jersey‘s county colleges, including Ocean County College in Toms River (Ocean County) and Raritan Valley Community College (RVCC) in North Branch (Somerset County). Kean offers upper-division and master‘s-level courses at these additional locations, permitting the completion of specific Kean University undergraduate and graduate programs. The initiative at Kean Ocean has included the recent hiring of dedicated full-time faculty members to teach at the Toms River campus.‖

The Plan also notes that these expansions are ―consistent with current demographic patterns in New Jersey.‖ A partnership with Ocean County College was formalized in 2008, which allows Kean students at OCC to use counseling and other services, while allowing OCC students to enter a four-year university without having to travel from their home county. (Document 8.5: Kean OCC Memorandum of Agreement)

Promotion: Apart from the Kean Ocean Program, Kean University does not make it easy for prospective students to learn about educational opportunities available to them at additional locations. The Registrar‘s website maintains some information about programs like that at Raritan Valley Community College. (http://www.kean.edu/registrar/registration_info.asp) But students unfamiliar with the University‘s website would have difficulty locating Raritan-based program information.

Raritan Valley Community College (RVCC) Programs Executive MBA Program The Executive MBA is a 20-24 month (42-48 credits) accelerated program for experienced executives and business professionals with substantial exposure and knowledge and is offered in four specialization areas: Finance, Information Technology/E-business, Management and Marketing. The program focuses on leadership, technology and professional networking. Courses are eight weeks in length.

Biotechnology In 2005, RVCC and Kean University entered into a partnership enabling graduates of RVCC‘s new biotechnology degree program to pursue a master‘s degree at Kean University‘s prestigious New Jersey Center for Science and Technology. Students who receive an Associate of Science (AS) in Biotechnology

from RVCC transfer with junior status into Kean‘s combined degree program leading to a Bachelor of Science (BS) in Science and Technology/Molecular Biology and a Master of Science (MS) in Science and Technology/Biotechnology. The dual degree program is offered through the New Jersey Center for Science, Technology, and Mathematics on the Kean University Campus. (Document 8.6: RVCC Biotechnology Articulation)

Other Kean University / Raritan Programs: Kean University offers graduate courses at RVCC as part of the College‘s University Center.

Promotion: Information about Kean‘s offerings at Raritan Valley is available on the Raritan Valley website, but not easily found in Kean materials. Enrollment has remained consistent for the past five years.

Kean Ocean Kean University and Ocean County College (OCC) have established a partnership to provide higher education in Ocean County beyond the level of the associate's degree. Students completing associate's degrees continue their studies for a Kean bachelor's degree by taking Kean upper-division courses offered on the OCC campus. Kean also offers courses at OCC for master's degrees for those already holding a bachelor's degree. OCC students who continue at Kean Ocean select majors from extensive degree offerings (Fig 8.4) and follow guide sheets developed exclusively for the location‘s articulated programs to ensure compliance with Kean‘s requirements and smooth transition to the University.

Fig. 8.4: Degrees Offered at the Kean Ocean Campus Computer Science / Information Systems Option BS Criminal Justice BA Elementary Education / K-5 Certification BA Elementary Education /K-5 + K-8 Certification BA Special Education / K-5 Certification BA Special Education / K-5 + K-8 Certification BA Finance BS New, Fall 2010 Graphic Design BFA New, Fall 2010 History BA History / Teacher Certification BA Management BS Marketing BS Nursing BSN Physical Education and Health BA Psychology BA New, Fall 2010 Public Administration BA Sociology BA Counselor Education with State Certification for School Counseling MA Educational Leadership with State Certification for Principals and Supervisors MA Nursing / Clinical Management and School Nursing Options MSN Public Administration MPA Accounting MA New, Fall 2010 Business Administration (Executive MBA program) MBA Source: Kean Ocean website – www.kean.edu/Kean Ocean

Enrollments at Kean Ocean have nearly quadrupled since the inception of the partnership. Currently, 1322 undergraduate and 193 graduate students are enrolled in Kean Ocean programs (Fig 8.5 below). Their Kean classes take place in renovated OCC classrooms, specifically equipped by Kean to serve its needs. Kean provides administrative, academic, and student services through cooperative arrangements with OCC offices providing equivalent services.

Fig. 8.5: Kean Ocean Enrollments: 2006-2010 1600

1400

1200 Total Hd Cnt 1000 UG Hd Cnt

800 GR Hd Cnt Total FTE 600 UG FTE 400 GR FTE 200

0 06 FA 07 SP 07 FA 08 SP 08 FA 09 SP 09/FA 10/SP 10/FA

Source: Compiled with Data from the Office of the Registrar

The Kean faculty who teach Kean Ocean courses are hired and assigned by the department chairs at the main campus and are expected to uphold academic standards and comply with policies in effect. According to the Faculty Guide for the Ocean campus, ―In general, all policies, procedures, and responsible parties remain the same for Kean‘s locations in Union and Ocean.‖ (Document 8.7: Kean Ocean Faculty Guide) As Kean Ocean continues to grow, staffing will become an issue as it is on the main campus. Although a number of full-time Kean faculty are assigned to the additional location, adjunct faculty play a critical role in delivering the curriculum. Fig 8.6 below depicts the percentage of courses taught by full- time faculty, 2006-2010.

Fig. 8.6: Kean Ocean Full-time Faculty Sections Kean Ocean Full Time Faculty % of Section 60% Taught 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 06/FA 07/SP 07/FA 08/SP 08/FA 09/SP 09/FA 10/SP Source: Compiled with Data from the Office of the Registrar

Within the next three years, Kean will build a full campus of its own adjacent to the OCC campus in Toms River as per the memorandum of understanding between the two institutions. The first building of this campus is under construction and scheduled to open for the fall 2012 semester.

Promotion: The Kean Ocean programs are easily found on the web since the University maintains a Kean Ocean site that provides program information and advisor contacts. The Kean Ocean campus AVPAA ensures that Ocean-based program information is up to date in both print and web formats.

Additional Location Nursing Programs The Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BSN) is a 125-credit upper division program for Registered Nurses only. The MSN degree prepares nurses with expertise in clinical management emphasizing system planning and protocols of care development responsive to culturally diverse health team and patient populations. This unique combination of trans-cultural nursing care and managerial skill prepares graduates with the competency necessary to take a leadership role in the clinical area. The program began in January 2008 (Nursing articulation agreements). All additional location nursing programs are articulated through agreements with individual institutions: Document 8.8: RVCC; Document 8.9: Muhlenberg School of Nursing; Document 8.10: Middlesex County College; and Document 8.11: Ocean County College. Kean‘s nursing programs are accredited by the National League of Nursing Accrediting Commission (NLNAC) and the NJ State Board of Nursing.

To accommodate the special needs of the nurse in full-time practice and to offer further professional degree education for RN nurses beyond the traditional campus setting, Kean University has four ―additional location‖ nursing programs—Kean Ocean, Union County College, Muhlenberg School of Nursing, and Middlesex County College. An RN to BSN ―off-site‖ program is offered at Raritan Valley Community College in Branchburg, New Jersey. The Kean Ocean Program has approximately 150 students; the Raritan program has approximately 100 enrolled. A third ―off site‖ program (RN to BSN) began in fall 2010 and is offered in cooperation with the Muhlenberg School of Nursing in Plainfield, NJ. An articulation agreement to establish a fourth off-site program (Middlesex County College) was signed on April 26, 2010. All off-site programs are all taught, supervised and coordinated by the Department of Nursing administration and faculty. All courses are offered at the RVCC campus and students have the option of attending full-time or part-time. According to the October 14, 2004, partnership agreement, nursing students, upon review by an advisor, are able to transfer up to 88 credits earned at RVCC into Kean‘s BSN and then take the remaining 37 credits required to earn the degree by completing Kean courses on the RVCC campus. Kean University also has RN to BSN and BSN to MSN programs held in Manahawkin Southern Education Center.

International Programs

According to the 2007-2012 Strategic Plan, ―We must be players on the world scene so that our students learn how to navigate new and dynamic markets; be comfortable crossing borders and cultural boundaries; and work effectively in intercultural situations.‖ (Appendix C).

The Center for International Studies (CIS) The Center for International Studies is a relatively new organizational unit that coordinates international education in order to integrate it into university life. CIS administers agreements for academic partnerships with foreign universities, supports study abroad, and organizes trips to synchronize academic and extracurricular opportunities that provide global and cross-cultural understanding.

China Initiative Kean University looks to China as an important educational market. Specifically, Kean has signed articulation agreements with Wenzhou University, Zhajiang University, and Xiangtan University. (Documents 8.12 and 8.13: Wenzhou University; Document 8.14: Zhajiang University; Document 8.15: Xiangtan University).

Fig. 8.7: Kean University China Initiatives Program Title Institution Date Status Memorandum of Understanding for Faculty Xiangtan University 2010 Active Academic Exchange 3+1 Articulation Model Lishui University 2008 Active ESL 2+2 Course Transfer Agreement Wenzhou University 2008 Active Direct Reciprocal Exchange – Mutual Waiver of Zhejiang University 2010 Active Tuition and Fees for Exchange Students 3+1 Articulation Model Shandong Finance University 2009 Active Source: Center for International Studies

Kean Campus in China Kean‘s agreement with China‘s Zhejiang Province for a major international initiative provides testament to the University‘s commitment to diversity and globalization. Kean University-Wenzhou has been proposed as a 300-acre, $62.5 million American-style campus funded in full by the provincial and local governments of the People‘s Republic of China. At this time, the proposal still awaits final approval of the Central Government of the People‘s Republic of China.

Program Promotion: The Center for International Studies staff maintains a comprehensive website as well as a CIS Facebook page. [See www.cie.kean.edu]

Study Abroad Kean University belongs to state, national, and international consortia that offer study abroad programs for students. Opportunities are also available under the academic partnership between Kean and the l‘Ecole Superieure de Commerce de Pau, France. The CIS administers all study abroad travel and programming. Eligible matriculated students are encouraged to participate, enroll in a full course of study abroad, and apply credits earned to meet their Kean degree requirements. From 2008-2010, 94 students studied abroad for at least one term. Complete enrollment information per international site is available in Document 8.16: Study Abroad Enrollments 2008-2010.

Financial Aid: Financial aid and scholarships are available. The Study Abroad Coordinator is the contact person for information on financial assistance to support a study abroad experience.

Promotion: The CIS staff maintains a comprehensive study abroad website that includes a user-friendly guide to all program information, including the application process, program dates, financial aid, and staff contacts. (See www.kean.edu/~cis.)

Travelearn Travelearn, Kean‘s ten to fourteen day programs abroad, offer participants the opportunity to combine academic study with short-term travel to sites and facilities overseas not often available or explored by the average tourist. Led by Kean faculty and staff who are specialists in the fields of study related to each program, the experience is enriched by lectures, readings, and other activities. Participants have the option of enrolling for academic credit or on a non-credit basis. Travelearn programs are not major-specific and focus on a variety of subjects, such as organizational leadership across cultures; regional cuisine, crafts, and customs; and foreign film studies. Programs in 2010 included Australia (Australian Adventure), England (London to Stratford: Theater in Depth), Egypt (African Diaspora), Chile (Doing Business in Latin America), Spain (Media & Film), France/Italy/England (The American Press through European Eyes), Bahamas (Coral Reef Ecology), and Italy (Special Topics in Design). Three hundred and twenty-nine students have participated in various TraveLearn experience since 2008. Document 8.17 provides a complete list of enrollments for particular destinations.

Financial Aid: Scholarships are not typically offered for short-term study of this nature. Travelearn does not have a GPA requirement for participation.

Promotion: The CIS staff maintains a comprehensive, user-friendly website that provides detailed information on Travelearn. Students may view Travelearn destinations, download applications, waiver forms, the credit card payment form and instructions, and other information. (See www.kean.edu/~cis).

Global Business Program Kean Master‘s in Global Management in Business Administration (GMBA) is a specialized MBA degree program that offers courses, experiences, and training in global business issues, problems, and opportunities. It requires an extensive global experience, immersing students in life and work in a global Business Administration environment that sets it apart from other programs. Students can acquire this global experience through participation in a set of activities including study abroad, business internships in foreign countries, global consulting projects, and international business study tours. Every year the GMBA and EMBA (Executive Management in Business Administration) students have the opportunity to be a part of a Global Business Travelearn trip.

Collateral Programs

Collateral programs are interdisciplinary programs that focus on specific areas of study and ―may be taken to complement or augment a major, or to develop a second concentration of study. . . ―According to the Kean University catalog, ―Career opportunities or professional competence may be enhanced through completion of a collateral program.‖ (http://www.kean.edu/catalogs/Undergraduate_Catalog_09-10.pdf) Kean University has 17 such programs covering a wide variety of fields and subject areas.

Dating back to the 1980s in some cases, these programs represent a well-intentioned strategy for enriching the curriculum, but one that has failed to attract students. A survey of the collateral coordinators finds that most students struggle to define a collateral and understand how it will help them in their professional and academic careers. In short, the collaterals suffer from an identity crisis. They are not majors; they are not minors. They are something in-between and are therefore difficult to define and explain. An informal survey conducted in July 2010 indicates that all collateral coordinators favor the establishment of an academic committee to study the possibility of converting the programs to interdisciplinary minors.

Fig 8.8 below lists the 17 collaterals along with enrollments for 2005-2009. During that period, 108 students completed the collateral programs. Only eight of the 17 collateral programs had any students. Two of the programs, Africana Studies and Training and Development, had 70% of the students enrolled in the collaterals in the five-year period under review. In addition, lack of university funding and recognition of their value may contribute to low enrollments, according to the collateral coordinators who receive no released time or compensation for overseeing their respective programs.

Fig 8.8: Collateral Enrollments Collateral Enrollment 2005-2009 150 108 100 36 44

50 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 9 3 3 0 0 3 0 7 Collateral Enrollment

0 2005-2009

… …

… … …

…

… … … … … …

…

Pre

Total

Famil

Adult

Wom

Nonp

Biling

Classi

Traini

Africa

Globa

Marin

Athlet Urban Geron Source: Compiled with Data from the Office of the Registrar

The collaterals offer learning opportunities in important areas of study that align with the University‘s diversity goals and overall mission. For the most part, information about collateral programs is available to students primarily (and in some cases, only) through a section of the 2009-2010 Undergraduate Course Catalog, now distributed exclusively in electronic form as a pdf file. There is no identifiable location or office space for the collateral programs on campus. Coordinators are located in various departments at the University. They teach some of the classes required of the programs, yet there are no regular meetings of the faculty members teaching courses in the collateral areas of study. As of this writing, some collaterals are without coordinators.

Experiential Learning

In recognition that some returning adult students may be reluctant to rejoin the classroom and may have to take courses duplicating already acquired knowledge and skills, Kean‘s Experiential Learning Program awards academic credit for prior learning or work experience acquired outside the traditional academic setting. Formerly under the purview of the Graduate College, assessment of experiential learning is now housed in the Office of the VPAA. The program is designed to determine what has been learned and how it fits into the Kean curriculum.

Applicants prepare detailed portfolios demonstrating knowledge attained, following these criteria for evaluation: The learning experience must (1) be documented; (2) be equivalent to undergraduate college- level work in quality; (3) have a knowledge base; and (4) have an applicability outside of the situation in which it was acquired. In addition, applicants identify Kean University courses that relate to the learning for which they seek credit and then confer with the appropriate Department Chairperson to discuss the possibility of receiving course credit. In turn, the Department Chairperson assigns a faculty assessor to further evaluate the application and make a recommendation to the Office of the VPAA for final approval and submission to the Registrar. Since 2009, the Office of the VPAA has approved 14 applications for experiential learning.

Internships

The University understands the importance of on-the-job experience and therefore maintains a number of active internship programs through which students can gain critical experience while earning credit toward their degrees. Internships are run locally through individual colleges and departments. The College of Business and Public Administration offers the Kean University Cooperative Education/Internship and Service Learning Programs. The latter allows students to gain similar professional experience in the public sector performing community service. (https://sites.google.com/a/kean.edu/cooped/home) The Department of Criminal Justice offers an internship program, as does the Department of Media and Film. The Institute for Foreign Service and Diplomacy takes as its mission the placing of students in internships that will prepare them for careers in international affairs; English offers internships in major NY publishing houses; and the Department of History, in seeking to promote the use of history in the public sphere, offers public history internships at the Liberty Hall Museum and at historic institutions and sites around the state.

Certificate/Post-Baccalaureate Programs

In line with the 2007-2012 Strategic Plan Appendix C, the University offers programs to professionals in local school districts and businesses in response to work force shortages and employer needs. Educational opportunities along this line include partnerships for research and continuing education of the current work force, an increase in pre-professional internships to prepare graduates for the work force, and career fairs. For the most part, certificate programs that help post-baccalaureate students earn additional skills and qualifications, such as the Post-Baccalaureate Teacher Certification Program, are the most popular of all

offerings available. According to the Office of Post-Baccalaureate Teacher Certification, these programs have grown from 60 to 90 students over the past 4 years. In addition to the Post-Baccalaureate teacher certification program, Kean University offers the following other Certification Programs:

Fig. 8.9: Kean University Certification Programs Certification Programs Post-Master's Certification Programs Non-Degree Professional Studies Programs Bilingual Education Certification Learning Disabilities Teacher Consultant Post Master's Certificate - Business Early Childhood P-3 Certification (LDTC) and Industry English as a Second Language Learning Disabilities Teacher Consultant Post Master's Licensed Certification (LDTC) Professional Counselor School Nursing Certification Reading Specialist Substance Awareness Coordinator School Business Administrator Certification Director of School Counseling Teacher of Reading Certification Supervisor, Principal Teacher of Students with Disabilities - Track A Certification Teacher of Students with Disabilities - Track B Certification Source: Kean University 2010 Catalog

School District Locations

Kean University's Nathan Weiss Graduate College, through its Graduate Education Department, offers ―At Your Doorstep,‖ which are off-campus courses at local school districts. The Bureau of Educational Services facilitates off-campus courses to enable superintendents and other school administrators the opportunity to meet district needs and provide individual development. (See Kean University Graduate Education at Your Doorstep, Spring 2010 Semester) Currently, Kean programming for credit, certification, or leading towards a graduate degree is offered at twenty-one different school districts/locations: Berkeley Heights, East Brunswick, East Orange, Hackensack, Highland Park, Holmdel, Kinnelon, Monmouth, Mountain Lakes, New Providence, North Providence, North Brunswick, North Caldwell, North Plainfield, Nutley, Perth Amboy, Rockaway Township, Westfield, West Morris, West Orange, Union and at the State Farm Insurance corporate campus.

Distance Learning

Kean University defines ―distance learning‖ as distinct from ―online instruction.‖ Distance education involves distributive software. For example, Kean has partnered with Virtual Education Software, Inc. to offer CEU (Continuing Education Units) courses for K-12 educators on CD-ROM or online. These are interactive courses. The distinction between online instruction and distance learning, however, is not clear when accessing the Kean websites. Distance learning is also defined by Kean University as ―off campus‖ instruction. ―Distance learning‖ also includes telecourses. But there are no clear definitions of the various modes of delivery or a one-stop website to find information about the programs.

Online Courses

More than a decade ago, the University recognized the need to offer courses to students at remote locations away from the classroom setting. Video courses offered at the library several times a week were transmitted to locations across New Jersey. This format now outdated, Kean has turned to distance learning via online courses, and has doubled the number of offerings in the last five years (from 60 in 2005 to 134 in 2009). (See Fig. 8.10 below.)

Fig. 8.10 Online Course Sections Online Course Sections 2005- 2009

200 107 134 60 87 93 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Source: Compiled with Data from the Office of the Registrar

In 2008-2009, the University offered 27 credit-granting distance education courses, with a total enrollment of 460 students. Kean also partnered with Virtual Education Software, Inc. to offer professional development hours for K-12 educators on CD-ROM or online. These interactive courses provided expert instruction at a pace suiting students‘ schedules. The University also offers a number of undergraduate courses that have been approved for online delivery. In January 2010, the Registrar published a list of online courses. Promotional efforts that are comprehensive and provide more specifics about each course are still needed.

The Nathan Weiss Graduate School, specifically the Office of Continuing and Professional Education (OCPE), offers more substantial opportunities to take online courses. The OCPE online courses are coordinated through an ―online instruction center.‖ The Office also offers ―virtual education for teachers.‖ Students seeking online instruction through the graduate college will with relative ease learn about programs offered at the Nathan Weiss Graduate College.

Kean‘s online course offerings are initiated by individual academic departments and to date have not been centrally coordinated or informed by specific requirements for assessment of online student learning outcomes or faculty training or certification for teaching online. To address this situation, the Faculty Senate Distance Learning Committee has recommended a series of steps to standardize online course offerings at Kean University. (Document 8.18: ―Distance Learning at Kean University,‖ Report) That Committee is currently developing and preparing to implement policies to bring Kean University into compliance with Section 495 of the Higher Education Opportunity Act of August 2008. These policies will ensure that each Kean student who registers for a distance education course is the student participating in and receiving credit for the course.

The Middle States Steering Committee Faculty Survey contained two questions dealing with online teaching (Questions 3 and 4). The survey indicates that the faculty who responded to the survey expressed reservations regarding training and support for online teaching. See Fig. 8.11.

Fig. 8.11: Faculty Technology Survey Online Teaching (Questions 3 and 4) 3. What support is available to you for teaching online courses? (check all that apply) 27/7 help Training in Appropriate I do not Total desk Software platform for delivery teach on-line 13 39 47 264 330 4% 12% 14% 80%

4. Why not? (check all that apply) Not enough knowledge and Availability Time Departmental/ I do not perceive it as Total experience with technology of training constraints university support a priority for tenure and promotion 64 38 105 45 34 194 33% 20% 54% 23% 18% Source: Middle States Steering Committee Technology Survey

Program Outreach

As this chapter demonstrates, Kean University has developed and is growing a broad range of successful programs to address the additional educational needs of students and the larger public the University seeks to serve. The University‘s ability to meet this aspect of its mission, however, depends on effective communication about the existence of such programs to its public. As noted in this study, promotion efforts of the University need to keep pace with the proliferation of additional educational opportunities in coordination with general university marketing. Successful campus models, such as Admissions and the Center for Academic Success, communicate information effectively, reaching prospective students through well-designed websites and other strategies. These successful models can inform the creation of an electronic ―clearing house‖ for information about the wide variety of vital programs and offerings detailed in this chapter.

The University complies with Standard 13. Detailed Strengths, Challenges, and Recommendations for this Standard are listed in Appendix A, p. A-10.

CHAPTER 9 ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT LEARNING (STANDARD 14)

Principal data sources on the topic include a Survey of Program Chairs and Coordinators, Institutional Research Data, Reports on Accredited Programs, Departmental Annual Reports and MS Data Collection Templates.

Institutional Context

Assessment activities are ongoing and formative as well as summative on the program and course levels for a good percentage of majors and GE/basic skills courses. To date, however, the variety of existing practices have not been integrated or coordinated, as stated in Chapter 2. Understanding the seriousness of the University‘s situation relative to Standard 14, the SC gave careful thought as to how to approach this chapter. With a Director of Assessment now on board at the University and implementation of an assessment Tool Kit (Appendix H) underway as of fall 2010, the SC choose to proceed by gathering information about assessment values and practices to construct a snapshot of assessment. This will (1) inform the visiting team for the purposes of evaluation and feedback and (2) provide a foundation to support the work of the Office of Accreditation and Assessment and foster the return of a culture of assessment on our campus. To these ends, the chapter will entail brief historic perspectives, an overview of assessment activities that have already occurred, a review of additional initiatives that are underway, and a comprehensive scan of values and practices, to include a sampling of best practices that will aid renewed investment in the assessment of student outcomes.

Kean University was once a leader in assessment at the postsecondary level. Funded by a State Challenge Grant in the 1980s, the University systematically assessed learning outcomes at all levels, modeling both process and outcomes. Over time, the assessment effort declined against a backdrop of change within the field itself and as a result of practices that were not sustainable over the long term. When the funding period ended, university budget alone could not support the assessment effort. As well, assessment at the University turned inward, reducing contact with the national context and professional development on trends and emerging models. Finally, the University burdened itself with the collection of an excessive amount of data, which dampened commitment and explains why some resistance to assessment exists today, resulting in a significantly reduced institutional commitment to assessment by the mid-90s.

Efforts to Resume Assessment

Between 1999 and the present, Kean University has undertaken a brief number of initiatives to resume assessment; most notable among these were the development and implementation of a Program Review Process, the GE assessment plans embedded in the new curriculum approved and piloted in 1999, and the Task Force on Assessment formed in fall 2001 to document institutional assessment practices/needs and to identify/acquire knowledge about assessment models and best practices. Though initially successful its potential has never been realized. (Document 9.1: University Assessment Committee Report, May 30, 2002)

In the mid-90s, the University introduced a 5-Year University-Wide Program Review Process (p. 18) and evaluated/revised it during AY 1999-2000 to require the collection and analysis of outcomes data. (Appendix M) Program Review Guidelines also call for discussion about the following in the report: (1) mission and strategic environment, (2) description of academic programs, (3) student outcomes assessment plan, (4) statistical data, (5) discussion of trends, (6) faculty, (7) students, (8) degree criteria and requirements, (9) nontraditional course delivery, (10) accredited organizations, (11) summary and recommendations, and (12) additional resources requested. Another element in this process is the visit of a

qualified external consultant who can comment on findings and recommendations. (http://ir.kean.edu/irhome/PDF/Assessment/ProgreviewGuidelines.pdf) From its inception, Program Review was highly successful; however, it has been suspended in part since 2005 due to budgetary constraints and as a result of transition in the Office of the VPAA. The second initiative, GE assessment of foundations skills courses, offered a program-specific model that closed the loop and further informed development of the University‘s innovative approach for delivering basic skills. While the program was successful, GE re-organization in 2004 shifted GE assessment from the programmatic level to the departmental level. (Document 9.2: 2004 GE Reorganization).

Assessment Activities Undertaken as a Result of the Self-Study Process

As stated earlier in the discussion of Standard 7, Kean University is fully committed to comprehensive assessment. Structures and processes are in place to once again position Kean as a leader in outcomes assessment. In 2009, the University created the Office of Accreditation and Assessment, a suite that provides sufficient space for staff and a records room to support the cycles of accreditation activity the University and various programs undergo. Approval of the position of Director of Assessment followed; it was subsequently staffed in winter 2010. The new director immediately joined the Steering Committee, serving also on its Executive Committee. Efforts to shape assessment plans began within this context and were aided by various governing bodies and committees on campus, such as the Faculty Senate and the University Planning Council. The leadership of the Executive Committee of the Steering Committee has played a key role in all improvement efforts by keeping the lines of communication open between the MSCHE Team, the administration, and other governing bodies on campus.

An example is the establishment of the Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Assessment. The Executive Committee shaped this committee‘s charge in concert with self-study findings and MSCHE standards. By early spring 2010, the group had developed the framework and parameters for assessment of student outcomes that are now in place. These aid the work of the Director of Assessment with a number of provisions, including a new Senate Standing Committee on Assessment, which is now in place for AY 10- 11. (Document 9.3: Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Assessment) Additional accomplishments also reflect the SC‘s responsiveness to the findings of the self study, specifically the inadequacy of the previously-used departmental annual report templates and the discovery that non-academic areas of the University do not necessarily submit annual reports. With assistance from the University Planning Council, the Executive Committee revised annual reporting templates. Within this rich framework for assessment, the Director of Assessment has also developed the key mechanisms for moving forward: an assessment action plan and accompanying five-year Survey/Instrument Tool Kit (Appendix H) for assessing the institution and student outcomes, strategic plans for Academic Affairs and GE, and pilot assessment activities for selected GE courses and their academic support components. This Assessment Tool Kit is designed with three primary purposes: 1) to ensure university-wide general learning objectives are being achieved; 2) to systematically gather evidence of student perceptions of critical services; and 3) to systematically measure graduate outcomes.

Current Initiatives and Future Directions

Current assessment activities are multi-faceted, focusing on academics, as the assessment pilots for special programs‘ summer courses illustrate, and on non-academics processes as well, an example being the student survey on financial services administered in fall 2010. Implementation of the encompassing assessment plan mentioned throughout this report includes the firm schedule for a variety of assessment- related activities that is currently underway. Since fall 2010, faculty and staff at Kean have had the opportunity to participate in sessions on the development of unit missions and measurable goals, workshops on assessing learning outcomes, and committee work to incorporate the capstone course into the overall assessment model. As a consequence of these various workshops and sessions offered, all academic and

non-academic programs on campus will phase into the assessment model over a specified period. It is no longer the case that Kean University is talking about assessment; the University is in the process of carrying out a well-defined, time-specific assessment initiative.

Policies, Practices, and Values for Assessing Student Learning

Given the status of assessment when the self-study process began and the progress of the implemented action plan, the Working Group developed and administered a Survey for Department Chairs and Program Coordinators (Appendix V), a Qualtrics survey consisting of both Likert-scale items and open-ended questions, to learn about assessment of student learning at the program and department levels. An equally important purpose for the survey was to gather information to orient the new Director of Assessment to the institutional context. Thirty-two program chairs responded to the survey, an 82% response. The following discussion reports on chairpersons‘ responses only.

Fig. 9.1 highlights systematic program review in academic units. As evident in this table, most baccalaureate programs have not conducted program reviews within the last five or more years. As is evident, most baccalaureate and certificate-granting programs, external offerings, collaterals, and minors are not systematically evaluated as independent programs, but rather are studied under the majors that subsume them. At the graduate level, the data is more encouraging. Sixty percent of master‘s programs engage in program review within a five- to six-year span, while 20% have never participated. Data for the doctoral programs are inclusive.

Fig 9.1 Implementation of Systematic Program Review - Department Chairs’ Responses Question Never 1-2 Years 3-4 Years 5-6 Years Other Responses GE Program Required Course 50% 33% 17% 0% 0% 6 Baccalaureate Degree 5% 15% 15% 62% 5% 21 Certificate 14% 29% 14% 43% 0% 7 Program on a External Campus 29% 14% 14% 29% 14% 7 Master‘s Degree 20% 7% 13% 60% 0% 15 Source: Survey for Department Chairs and Program Coordinators, Appendix V

Programs that recently completed systematic review include the School of Nursing (Document 9.4) and the Chemistry Department (Document 9.5).

Kean University is also subject to statewide certification and licensure requirements. All education programs complete content-specific accreditation review reports, and the College of Education recently completed a comprehensive report which highlights how its programs use data for the purpose of continuous improvement (Document 9.6: National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) Report). Following a formal NCATE Accreditation visit in November 2010, COE‘s accreditation was reaffirmed with no areas of weakness.

Assessment of Program Needs

As part of Kean‘s mission ―to adapt to changing social, economic, and technological environments‖ (Appendix B : Kean Mission), programs are required to update their courses every five years in order to meet the changing knowledge in the disciplines and technology demands. All new programs and program changes must follow the prescribed procedures as detailed in UCC Procedures Manual. (Appendix U) The process requires that the proposal revision be reviewed and approved by department curriculum committees and college curriculum committees. Kean University also requires that substantive program changes be submitted and approved by the University Curriculum Committee, the Faculty Senate, and in the case of

new programs, the NJ Presidents‘ Council. Program changes or proposals for new programs require a detailed needs assessment with documentation provided by the department.

Several university policies and practices have been instituted that communicate expectations of student learning at various assessment levels. The UCC Procedures Manual outlines an institution-wide format for curricular communication among departments. Revised in the spring 2009, it is under revision again at this time due to the reorganization of Academic Affairs. For additional information about curriculum procedures, refer to Chapter 6, p. 61.

Criteria for Program Admissions

A major concern for the University is the low rate of degree conferrals for first-time full-time enrollees within a four- or five-year period. The Office of Institutional Research (IR) has diligently tracked these data, recording the total numbers of degrees per program and college as well as the one-year and two-year retention rates. (Document 9.7: Institutional Profile, 2008-2009) The need for non-credit-bearing developmental courses can be important in understanding the low graduation rates; however, departments are not routinely briefed on their individual program four-year graduation rates. These data would require program and department faculty to engage in a review of their practices to determine where students are getting bogged down and what actions the program or department might take to improve graduation rates.

One element that may factor into student retention and graduation is the criteria that govern admission to the University and its programs. Fig. 9.2 presents the percentage of degreed programs that require more than the minimum 2.0 GPA for admission and graduation. Many programs that are accredited require a higher GPA for admission. Percentages of programs requiring accreditation in the various colleges range from 7% in the College of Business and Administration and the College of Humanities and Social Sciences to 100% in the Colleges of Education and Visual and Performing Arts. However, with over 50% of Kean University undergraduate programs requiring greater than a 2.0 GPA for admission, no negative impact on enrollment is shown. See Fig. 9.2.

Fig 9.2 Admissions Requirements* Programs with GPA 5-Year Change # Degrees College or Other in Degrees Conferred 2008-09 Requirement Conferred Business & Public 11 735 14.8% Administration 79% 17 723 3.9% Education 100% Humanities & Social 28 659 29.0% Sciences 82% 11 246 40.6% Nathan Weiss 100% Natural, Applied, and 25 276 1.5% Health Sciences 74% Visual & Performing 12 155 6.9% Arts 55% *Source: Document 9.8: Fall 2009 Student and Faculty Profile; Document 9.7: Institutional Profile, 2008- 2009; Document 9.9: Transfer and Readmit Major List

In the absence of systematic assessment of admissions requirements, it is difficult to know what criteria have the greatest impact on student performance. Though many departments have examined the need for their admissions requirements, for example the History Department, or have state standards mandating their requirements, for example teacher education, many more have not conducted comprehensive assessment to

100

determine whether increasing entrance requirements would result in higher rates of student success. The Department of Criminal Justice implemented a 2.5 GPA admissions requirement in 2006 and has witnessed a 90% increase in degrees conferred in the last five years, but no systemic analysis of outcomes has been conducted to validate standards of admission. A framework must be developed in order to ensure that raised standards are correlated to the discipline‘s needs as well as maintaining Kean‘s mission of opportunity. Programs that implement heightened standards must also assess this element during their program review cycle.

General Education

The General Education Program (GE) is the only identified university-level program at Kean University. GE operates to provide a liberal education to all Kean undergraduates and covers disciplines such as Computer Science, English, Health, Humanities, Mathematics, Science, and Social Science. Assessment is underway in a number of GE courses. Assessment includes pre- and post-diagnostic surveys, course rubrics and checklists, student portfolios, external norms/tests, technical application skills, and capstone evaluation. Currently, the assessment data collected by GE is not used consistently for program improvement. Of the GE foundation components, only Mathematics is not systematically analyzed and used toward program improvement (given the 54% pass rate in MATH 1000, systematic analysis of factors contributing to the high value rate must be a primary focus). Transition to Kean, English Composition, and Speech Communication analyze data systematically for the purpose of program improvement. (Document 9.10: 2008-2009, General Education Report) Refer to Chapter 7 for additional Information.

College-Level Assessment

The Middle States Data Collection Templates (Appendix G) that all units on campus completed (Document 9.11), Annual Reports (Document 9.12), and five-year Program Review Reports (Document 9.13) as well as assessment and accreditation reports were reviewed in order to determine the types of activities being utilized on a college level to assess student learning. Findings revealed that CNAHS and NWGC do not conduct college-wide assessments of student learning, the College of Education conducts assessment of student learning for all programs on a regular basis, as required by NCATE. (Document 9.6) No other college-wide assessment has been addressed, but within each college, various programs are accredited.

Measures for Assessment of Student Learning

Assessment of student learning is primarily a programmatic activity. Due to accrediting body requirements, this activity is more widely conducted on a continual basis within programs that must maintain accreditation. Each program within the College of Education (COE) conducts extensive assessment of student learning. In order to obtain NJ teacher certification, COE students are required to pass the Praxis I and II as one of their assessment tools (Document 9.7). Praxis I has been established as an entrance requirement for admission to the COE, while Praxis II is required by the State.

Several resources provided evidence that assessment measures of student learning are being addressed at the departmental level. A review of academic program and college annual reviews (Document 9.12), assessment reports (Document 9.14), and accreditation reports (Document 9.15) provided an array of assessment activities. Furthermore, two surveys of unit chairs and directors provided a cross-section of these activities. (Appendix V)

Academic programs vary in their efforts to bring faculty together in order to review student learning based on program outcomes. Fig. 9.3 reveals over half of the chairs reported engaging faculty to review student outcomes each semester or each year; 17% of baccalaureate-granting programs never gathered their faculty

101

to review these factors; and 75% of certificate-granting programs reported gathering faculty once a month or every semester.

Fig 9.3 Gather Faculty to Review Student Learning Based on Expected Program Outcomes Question Never Once a Month Every Semester Every Academic Year Responses GE Program Required Course 53% 0% 27% 20% 15 Baccalaureate Degree 17% 22% 26% 35% 23 Certificate 25% 25% 50% 0% 12 Program on a External Campus 58% 0% 33% 8% 12 Master‘s Degree 26% 16% 37% 21% 19 Source: Survey for Department Chairs and Program Coordinators, Appendix V

Data from the Survey for Department Chairs and Program Coordinators in response to the query ―What mechanisms are in place for communicating course expectations of student learning outcomes?‖ show that 38% of departments do not use additional sources beyond the syllabus as their primary mechanism to communicate expectations of student learning outcomes. The majority (62%) of departments do use additional mechanisms of communication, which predominantly include online homework systems, department guidebooks or handbooks, and grading grids.

Overall, assessment of student learning begins with how effectively course expectations are communicated to students. The clearer the expectations, the stronger the likelihood that students will understand what they will need to do to be successful. Once this is communicated, evaluating student learning outcomes becomes a natural outgrowth of the teaching-learning process.

Academic Program Assessment

Assessment of student learning in the academic departments involves a range of practices. Thirty-one percent of academic departments conduct pretest assessment of student learning, while 47% utilize exit assessments (see Fig. 9.4). Forty-four percent of departments engage in comprehensive testing, and 81% utilize research projects or the capstone course to assess student learning. Survey data suggest that 9% of departments are not engaging in assessment activities, and the list of assessments that follows does not provide insight as to whether departments offer multiple opportunities for assessment in a given class.

Fig 9.4 Types of Assessment of Student Learning Response % Pretest 10 31% Exit assessment 15 47% Comprehensive testing 14 44% Portfolio or project exhibitions 12 38% Performance assessment (i.e., juries, recitals) 7 22% Research project/capstone 26 81% Student course evaluation 24 75% Other 6 19% Assessment of student learning is not done 3 9% Source: Survey for Department Chairs and Program Coordinators, Appendix V

Types of exit assessment conducted within departments vary. Research projects were reported as the most common form of assessment (69%), followed by student course evaluations as an indirect assessment of student learning (66%) and licensure or certification exam scores (41%) (see Fig. 9.5).

102

Fig 9.5 Types of Exit Assessment of Student Learning Response % Posttest 10 31% Licensure or certification exam scores 13 41% Graduate school entrance exams (i.e., 9 28% GMAT, GRE, LSAT, MCAT, etc.) Creative portfolio or project exhibitions 10 31% Performance assessment (such as juries or 6 19% recitals) Research project/capstone 22 69% Comprehensive testing 11 34% Student course evaluation 21 66% Other 2 6% Assessment of student learning is not done 5 16% Source: Survey for Department Chairs and Program Coordinators, Appendix V

With regard to the use of graduation rates, most academic programs do not assess program graduation rates (see Fig. 9.6). However, 53% of baccalaureate-granting programs, 63% of master‘s-granting programs, 67% of certificate-granting programs and 40% of programs on an external campus assess graduation rates at least once every two or more years.

Fig 9.6 Utilizes Graduation Rates of Students within Academic Program Question Never Once every 2 or Once every academic Once a Responses more years year semester Baccalaureate Degree 36% 21% 23% 9% 22 Certificate 33% 17% 33% 17% 6 Program on a External 60% 40% 0% 0% 5 Campus Master‘s Degree 38% 19% 38% 6% 16 Source: Survey for Department Chairs and Program Coordinators, Appendix V

Appraisal of Longitudinal Data Fig. 9.7 reveals a 17% to 100% range in departmental collection and use of longitudinal data, such as post- graduation data, employer and alumni survey data, and certification/licensure data. On average, 62% of departments engage in these activities. Pockets of effective post-graduation assessments exist in every college. These constitute an attempt to systemically gather quantitative evidence for measuring the efficacy of the degree. In some instances, best practices are evident, as the section ―Best Practices in Assessment‖ details below.

Due to accreditation standards, all programs within the College of Education collect and analyze employer, alumni, and certification/licensure data (see Fig. 9.7). Eighty percent of the programs within the College of Visual and Performing Arts do the same. The College of Business represented the lowest outlier with 17% engaging in this activity. However, the COE has already been identified by the President to pursue national accreditation and is currently engaged in developing structures and processes to facilitate this important commitment.

103

Fig 9.7 Types of Post-Graduation Data Collected by College Colleges Number of Employer Survey Alumni Certification/ Employer or Alumni Departments Data Survey Licensure Data Data Data VPA 5 1 2 3 80% NAHS 8 1 3 5 63% HSS 10 1 1 5 50% EDU* 8 16 16 16 100% (11 additional programs) BPA 6 0 0 1 17% NWGC 5 1 1 3 60% Source: Document 9.12: Department Annual Program Reports, Document 9.13: Program Review reports, (*) Supporting data can be found at the following URLs: o Document 9.6: http://www.kean.edu/~ncate o Document 9.16: http://www.kean.edu/~ncate/Surveys.htm o Document 9.17: http://131.125.2.119:8080/Survey.aspx?surveyid=2679 o Document 9.18: Facebook.com – Kean University College of Education

Utilizing Assessment Department chairs indicated that assessment data were utilized in discussions and decisions about majors, programs, and the university overall for the purpose of program improvement (see Fig. 9.8). Eighty-one percent of departments used assessment data to implement program changes within the last five years. Furthermore, 70% indicated that national, state, or other indicators or standards were used to improve student learning, while 69% indicated that these standards were used in order to implement program changes in the last five years. Following this notion of benchmarking, 56% of departments indicated that standardized testing was utilized to determine the quality of student preparation for graduate study and professional licensure.

Fig 9.8 Changes Made Due to Assessment and Standards Response % -Changes made within 5 years due directly to assessment data 21 81% -National, state, or other indicators or standards used by your program to improve student learning 19 70% outcomes -Changes occurred in your program over the last five years due directly to national, state, or other 18 69% indicators or standards -Standardized testing utilized to determine the quality of student preparation for graduate study 15 56% and professional licensure Source: Survey for Department Chairs and Program Coordinators, Appendix V

Best Practices in Assessment

College of Education The COE‘s model, SPECTRUM, includes a conceptual framework of knowledge, skills, and dispositions. Each program within the college has developed specific learning outcomes that are measured relative to (1) Knowledge of subject matter, student learning, diversity of leaders, classroom management, and assessment; (2) Skills in the areas of planning instruction, instructional strategies and technologies, learning environment, communication, assessment, student support and reflection, and professional development; and (3) Disposition in diversity, high expectation and fairness, community and culture, positive climate and role model, and lifelong learner. COE assessment takes place at both the department and unit levels on a

104

semester-by-semester basis. Data collected include specific course data, the Praxis I and II, teacher work sample portfolios, field performance ratings, pre-professional and professional internship performance competency assessments, videotape analysis, report cards, and surveys of graduates and employers. Data collected are distributed to programs each semester for evaluation and improvement.

A complex cross-walk demonstrates how every department outcome aligns with individual Specialized Professional Association (SPA) outcomes, national teaching standards, NJ Teaching Standards, and COE outcomes. Complete tables illustrating this process can be found in the individual SPA reports located in the Assessment Library. (Document 9.19) Unit assessment points occur prior to formal departmental admission, during the intermediate pre-professional field stage and again at the conclusion of the senior professional field and capstone courses. Additional assessment is required in predetermined courses and is typically collected by universal rubrics used across all course sections. The culminating data point for all COE programs occurs in the capstone course.

Every candidate must complete the Teacher Work Sample (TWS) with oversight given by the instructor in the weekly seminar. All eight sections of the TWS have a universal rubric which is adapted slightly to reflect individual SPA requirements. The data are reported electronically and posted on the Teaching Performance website. Further departmental analysis takes place when faculty review candidates‘ cumulative and individual section scores. This introspective process is a vital component in identifying course content strengths as well as signaling potential gaps in course development and sequencing.

In Part C of the annual NCATE report, the COE details specific program changes that have been made annually as a function of data collected for the purpose of program improvement. SPA reports for every program in the COE were submitted for national review in September 2009. The formal NCATE reaccreditation visit took place in November 2010 based on a new accreditation model called ―Continuous Program Improvement‖ (CPI). Exhibits found at http://www.kean.edu/~ncate and in Document 9.14 catalogue the significant program features of the CPI model by standard. The Composition Program, Department of English, College of Humanities and Social Sciences The Composition Program‘s portfolio assessment holds promise as a foundation for university-wide assessment in writing. Piloted in spring 2009 and implemented fully in fall 2009, portfolio assessment in composition is now a permanent component of the Program.

Students use Google Docs to prepare a representative portfolio of their work and invite their instructors and the Composition Program only to view their collections. Portfolios must include five assignments: (1) An analytical essay which identifies the elements within a text and describes the relationships among those elements. Materials must include planning work; at least one rough draft, preferably with instructor comments; a final, unmarked draft. (2) A persuasive or argumentative essay which asks students to take a specific position on a subject and attempt to persuade readers that position is valid. Material included for this assignment must include planning work; at least one rough draft, preferably with instructor comments; and a final, unmarked draft. (3) An in-class essay written under test conditions. (4) One assignment that requires students to summarize and respond to a text. (5) A reflective letter, addressed to the College Composition Coordinator that introduces the portfolio. In this letter, students reflect on what they learned in the course and explain how the portfolio demonstrates that learning. Standard procedures, including a baseline rubric, are in place for portfolio reading, which occurs at the end of each semester. For spring 2009 reading, a random stratified sample of 13% of all College Composition

105

student portfolios was selected for this reading, representing all versions of the course. Each portfolio was evaluated by two different faculty members using the same rubric.

Categories strongly related to the program‘s mission are treated as critical in the portfolio assessment: audience awareness, development of ideas, integration of others‘ ideas with the writer‘s ideas, organization of an entire essay, and appropriateness of revisions. Scores for each criterion are averaged together and then compared with data gathered through a baseline rubric keyed to the diagnostic taken at the beginning of each semester. Post-scores are higher than pre-scores for nearly all groups where statistical tests can be applied. (Document 9.14: College Composition Assessment Report, fall 2008)

Department of Theatre, College of Visual and Performing Arts In accordance with the National Association of Schools of Theatre standards, each theatre major is assessed at least once per semester by all of the resident theatre faculty. Initial assessment occurs when a student demonstrates an interest in any of the four theatre major degree programs and is followed up thereafter every semester to assure that the student continues to demonstrate the appropriate development of knowledge and skill. Academic and professional proficiency are examined by way of performance or portfolio presentation and evaluation, academic grade point average, writing, and interview skills. Assessments are part of the regular calendar, and the faculty meet collectively with each student. In addition, those students studying private voice must perform in an evaluated jury attended by the theatre voice faculty and the theatre chair. Faculty assessment forms are kept on file and, in the event of poor performance, the student meets with the chair and advisor to construct a remediation plan, or, in the event of continued poor performance, the student is guided toward another major. (Document, 9.12: Department of Theatre Annual Report, 2008)

Department of Music, College of Visual and Performing Arts The extensive and regular assessment of student progress and student competencies made by the Conservatory of Music faculty can stand as a model for the assessment process used throughout the University in any area of study involving technical competency. Full-time faculty members assess every music and music education major personally at least 3, 4, or 5 times a semester, depending on the student‘s level of advancement. The assessment vehicles used include juries (performance examinations—end of each semester), special gate juries, senior recitals, secondary-instrument proficiency examinations (piano, voice, woodwinds I & II, brass, percussion, strings), field assessments, narrative assessments, monthly group recitals, chamber music class public performances, and major and minor ensemble public performances. All of these assessments are made in addition to the standard studio and classroom assessments, including pen and paper tests. (Document 9.11: Department of Music Middle States Data Collection Template)

Additional assessment practices are equally exemplary:

The School of Nursing – a post-graduation employer and alumni survey to ascertain the extent to which students are successfully prepared for careers in nursing. Analyses of the data on an annual basis provide suggestions for faculty to consider in terms of strengthening course syllabi and delivery. Special efforts ensure that student training keeps pace with technological changes in the field. (Documents 9.4 & 9.11) Marketing – a cyclical program in which data are collected for required courses in the fall semester and analyzed in the spring semester. Findings are utilized to improve courses and rubrics. (Document 9.11) Geology/Meteorology – outcome assessment activities that include pre- and post-testing for some courses, portfolios, and term projects. A five-year review of the PRAXIS II data over a five-year period, and an evaluation that collects feedback from employers at the end of student internships about employer satisfaction with the quality and skill of Kean students. (Document 9.11) Communication – ten key areas of competency measured by a pre- and post-test instrument for all majors. (Document 9.11) A pre-test in Communication and Media Theory classes and a post-test in the

106

Communication capstone class. All faculty members receive copies of the test to integrate concepts into their classes. Communication speech labs assess students and instructors via closed-ended surveys. Data reports are submitted to the department chair each semester and at the end of each academic year. A four- phase assessment for the GE required communication course (COMM 1402) that includes the following phases: standardized speech and post-course assessment (paper); standardized speech and post-course assessment (online); data-collection and analysis centralized with basic course director; and further training of instructors with an assessment tool.

Although the institution lacks five years of data across all academic programs and Kean University is not in full compliance with Standard 14, all elements are in place to generate useable, sustainable assessment data across every academic program by the time of our Periodic Review Report in 2016. Detailed Strengths, Challenges, and Recommendations for this standard are listed in Appendix A, pp. A- 10 & A-11.

107

CHAPTER 10: CONCLUSION

The Self-Study Process

The self-study process directly engaged nearly 100 employees and students from all divisions, colleges, and a wide range of offices, academic departments, and campus interests. It was founded on an unprecedented degree of transparency at the University that, in turn supported an environment of inquiry. We worked to establish forthright, respectful discourse methodology within the Steering Committee in order to both create ownership and promote the transference of the methodology to the Working Groups. The high level of transparency and the support of the upper administration in the process created a unique moment in time at the institution. Perhaps more important than the findings of the study is the transformative nature of the experience in the life of the institution.

Early in the process, before the Steering Committee was formed, the self-study start-up team recommended establishing a permanent Office of Accreditation and Assessment for housing materials and staff as well as providing space for the working team that would form. The President strongly supported this proposal, allocating funds for salary and expenditures as well as office space. Central to this concept was the creation of the Accreditation and Assessment Library where five years‘ data will be stored and made accessible to the university community from this point forward. This process revitalized the emphasis on data that had been lost at the institution for some time and has helped to create a newfound respect for data and its usefulness as a tool in institutional renewal and student success.

Another early, central concept of the self study was the implementation of action plan to address areas of concern. The co-chairs felt strongly that addressing issues of concern upon discovery would serve the institution well, enhancing the atmosphere of trust and inquiry. Throughout the process, the Executive Committee met regularly with the President to present findings, make recommendations, and seek implementation resources. As a result, the Steering Committee and Working Groups perceived their work as both valued by the administration and valuable to the institution. In turn, the self-study process quickly became one aimed at improving the institution as an experience for our students at neither the expense of any one person nor the benefit of any one person. Slowly, a transformation is occurring which we believe will be realized as the annual assessment reports generated by units and departments across campus reveal both our many successes as well as the challenges we face – together.

The self-study process reaffirmed the significance of our mission and our dedication to the unique student body we serve. The outcomes of this study and the action plans generated for improvement are a result of this lens of reaffirmation. Equally intriguing is the knowledge that many of the streamlining recommendations in this report will not only improve student services but improve efficacy as well, resulting in the fiscal savings so crucial in these unprecedented economic times in public higher education.

Overarching Recommendations

Although numerous recommendations are delineated in the body of this report, certain themes elevate to issues of priority. First among these recommendations is the need to maintain the momentum created in the self-study process, for example to advance opportunities for inquiry further, promoting assessment of our activities. A strong premise of our self-study design is the notion that accreditation is an ongoing process, not a five-year or ten-year episodic event.

With the successful implementation of institutional and student learning outcomes assessment programs, Kean University will meet its potential and thrive within the current economic climate. The framework for

108

full implementation and enculturation is in development, and faculty/staff training within that context is underway and will continue until all campus units are fully engaged in the assessment process. Relative to assessment of academic programs, the capstone course for all academic majors provides an excellent medium for collecting student learning outcomes data on a programmatic and general nature; with proper curriculum development, these courses can meet their potential as both an instructional and assessment opportunity. The full three-year plan noting in-process and completed initiatives for both academic and non-academic units will be in place and available at the time of the site visit in April 2011. In time, as the environment of inquiry makes it safe to collect, analyze, and report data, a permanent, sustainable culture of assessment will thrive on campus.

Within the context of assessment, planning documentation will be essential, providing a context for the work of units and departments that will help guide their processes. The UPC will play a significant role to this end, and the new Strategic and Facilities Master Plans in development will add to the context supporting assessment at Kean.

As assessment and communication have surfaced as recurring themes of need over the past decade, the need exists to oversee the ongoing improvement of these. The transition over the past several years to supply information in an online format has placed significant burdens in the area of technology, and special efforts are needed to ensure that the website remains current and that the servicing of technologies, both new and old, meets demands.

Many of the policies currently in place at the University have evolved over time, often as the result of circumstances and personalities rather than the result of deliberate choices created by value or idiom. Sustainable, well-documented, accessible policies transcend personalities and office changeover. As transitions in key leadership positions occur, clear articulation of job responsibilities and succession planning will ease change, moving the University forward rather than restarting operations with each transition.

Strategic planning across all divisions and its relation to budget planning needs to be codified in greater detail and transparency. Given the decades-long trend in reduced state funding, enrollments will be the driving force in fiscal management at the institution. Managing enrollment growth, budgetary stewardship, and resource allocation in a changing context will require careful emphasis and synthesis of enrollment management, budgetary planning, and strategic planning.

Summation

Based upon the findings of the Working Groups, the Steering Committee concludes that the activities in place and in planning well position the University. However, the University does not possess five years of appropriate assessment activity and data to demonstrate full compliance with the letter of Standards 7 and 14, Institutional Assessment and Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes. Those activities are now well underway and data are being collected, analyzed and utilized for improvement.

109

BIBLIOGRAPHY

"The Association Of American Colleges And Universities." Trends and Emerging Practices in General. Hart Research Associates, May 2009. Web. 16 Feb 2011. . ―Career Development and Advancement.‖ Apr 2009. .

―College of Education: National Council of Accreditation of Teacher Education." Apr 2009. .

Frankel, Barbara. "The DiversityInc Top Universities and Colleges." DiversityInc Magazine. Oct 2008: 71. Print.

―Kean University.‖ Apr 2009. .

―Kean University Board of Trustees.‖ Apr 2009. .

―Kean University Center for International Studies.‖ Apr 2009. .

―Kean University Cooperative Education/Internship and Service Learning Programs.‖Apr 2009. .

―Kean University Cougar Link.‖Apr 2009. .

―Kean University Global Education Innovation.‖ Apr 2009. < http://cie.kean.edu>.

―Kean University: Kean Ocean.‖ Apr 2009. < www.kean.edu/Kean Ocean>.

―Kean University Office of Institutional Research Employee Profile.‖Jan 2011. .

―Kean University Office of Research and Sponsored Programs.‖Apr 2009. .

―Kean University Program Review Guidelines.‖Apr 2009. .

―Kean University Registrar.‖Apr 2009. .

―Kean University Undergraduate Catalog 2009-2010.‖Aug 2010. .

―National Center for Educational Statistics.‖Apr 2009. < http://nces.ed.gov/IPEDS/DATACENTER>.

"NJ Transfer." New Jersey Statewide Transfer Initiative, 2010. Web. 21 Dec 2009. .

110

―Protecting Human Research Participants.‖Apr 2009. < http://phrp.nihtraining.com/users/login.php>.

―State of New Jersey Commition on Higher Education.‖ Apr 2009. .

―Tuition and Fee Increases at New Jersey Colleges." Star Ledger 05 Sep 2010, Print.

111

APPENDICES

A. Strengths, Challenges, and Recommendations, Chapters 2-9

B. Kean University Mission Statement

C. Strategic Plans 2002-2007 and 2007-2012

D. New Jersey College/University Accountability Sourcebook 2009 & 2010

E. The Reconfigured Scheduling Template

F. Reorganization Document of Academic Affairs: Organizing for Student Success

G. Data Collection Template

H. Assessment Toolkit

I. Improvement Action Plan Matrix

J. Matrix Aligning Self-Study Recommendations and Senate Committees

K. 2006 Middle States Periodic Review Report

L. Performance Indicators

M. Program Review Guidelines

N. Strategic Focus 2003 Highlights and Detailed Summary

O. Lampitt Bill, Transfer Agreement for Students with Associates Degrees

P. Department/ Academic Unit Annual Report Template

Q. Administration Organizational Chart

R. IPEDS Data Feedback Report 2010

S. Responses to Faculty Survey Questions 1-61, Sp 2010

T. Summary of Responses to Faculty Survey Item #62, Sp 2010

U. University Curriculum Committee (UCC) Procedures Manual 2009

V. Survey for Department Chairs and Coordinator

112

DOCUMENTS BY CHAPTER

Executive Summary ES1 Faculty Replenishment Plan

Chapter 1 1.1 Higher Education Restructuring Act of 1996 1.2 Approved Research Design 1.3 Assessment Plan for the Office of Human Resources

Chapter 2 2.1 Quality First Initiatives 2.2 Presidential Reports 2.3 Institutional Profile 2008-09 2.4 COE Unit Assessment System 2.5 COE NCATE Institutional Report 2010 2.6 Program Review Schedule 2004-2010 2.7 Division of Student Affairs Strategic Plan

Chapter 3 3.1 Program Review Schedule 2004-2010 3.2 KU Annual Budget 3.3 Audited Financial Statement 3.4 S & P Rating Direct, June 9, 2009

Chapter 4 4.1 The Higher Ed Restructuring Act of 1994 4.2 Duties of Executive Staff 4.3 Faculty Senate Constitution 4.4 Focus Group February 10, 2010 4.5 KFT Contractual Agreement 2007-2011 4.6 Correspondence from the Kean Federation of Teachers (2) in response to both the August 2010 and November 2010 versions of the Self Study report. 4.7 CWA Local 1031 Contract 4.8 CAS callers‘ log 4.9 Director of Student Financial Services Interview notes

Chapter 5 5.1 A Sampling of Recruitment Materials 5.2 Admissions Report on Open House Events, 2009-2010 5.3 Student Survey of Financial Services 5.4 Student Services Programs—Materials and Reports 5.5 The Office of Student Intervention and Retention Assessment Plan

Chapter 6 6.1 Faculty Survey Spring 2010 6.2 Student and Faculty Profile, Office of Institutional Research, 2009 6.3 Registrar Office Data: Number of Course Sections by Faculty 6.4 Faculty Senate White Paper October 10, 2009

113

6.5 FT 2007-2011 Agreement State of NJ, Council of NJ State Locals 6.6 Adjunct Faculty Agreement 2007-2011 6.7 Faculty Office Hour Policy, 2006 6.8 Faculty Advisee Assignments, Office of the Registrar 6.9 Faculty Overload Assignments, Payroll Office 6.10 Released Time Reports, Office of Institutional Research 6.11 Faculty Profile, Office of Institutional Research 2009 6.12 Program Accreditations, Kean University 2009 Catalogue 6.13 KORRS Announcement June 2010 ORSp Newsletter 6.14 Kean University Library Content DM Description 6.15 Department Annual Reports 2008-2009 6.16 Program Accreditation Reports 6.17 Tabulation of Department Reports 2009 6.18 POGIL Publications 2008, 2009 6.19 Case Study Instruction (CSI) Summary Description 6.20 Research Team Description NJCSTM 6.21 Statistics Course Innovations Description 6.22 ELUMINATE Virtual Classroom Description 6.23 Writing Center Program Plan 6.24 Affirmative Action Guidelines 6.25 Procedures Applications and Letters of Agreement for Tenure, Retention and Promotion Committees 6.26 VPAA MSCHE Steering Committee Interview 6.27 Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee Composition 6.28 Organizational Chart Division of Institutional Advancement 6.29 ORSP Program Calendar 6.30 Major Research and Public Service Activities: Institutional Profile 2005-2009 6.31 Untenured Faculty Research Initiative 6.32 Internal Research Funding, ORSP 6.33 CPD Program and Calendar 6.34 TTFN Program and Calendar 6,35 FDN Document 6.36 Blackboard/ WebCT Report for Middlestates OCIS, June 2010 6.37 Reports on Faculty Computers, OCIS, June 2010 6.38 Reports on Distance Learning Education Using CMS, OCIS June 2010 6.39 Reports on Mediuated Classrooms, OCIS June 2010 6.40 Reports on Computer Labs, OCIS June 2010 6.41 OCIS Report for Middle States, June 2010 6.42 KUAFF Communication, SP 2010 6.43 Adjunct Faculty Handbook 2009-2010 6.44 University Planning Council Kean University 2010

Chapter 7 7.1 Approved Programs 2005-2009 7.2 University Curriculum Procedures Manual 7.3 Discontinued Programs 2009 7.4 Annual Reports—Assessment Library 7.5 Syllabus—Assessment Library 7.6 Provost Office Documentation 7.7 Preparing for Registration—Registrar Website 7.8 Kean University Enrollment Highlights Data—Office of Institutional Research

114

7.9 Degrees Conferred Data—Office of Institutional Research 7.10 Student Focus Group Notes – April 28, 2010 7.11 Teaching Performance Center- Field Experience Advisory Committee 7.12 Institutional Research Fall 2010 Fact Sheet 7.13 Chairperson/Coordinator Survey Results 7.14 College of Education binder Communication Disorders and Deafness Report 2008-2009 7.15 NWGC- Admissions Policy 7.16 Kean Ocean Website 7.17 Kean Ocean Enrollment Statistics fall 2006 through spring 2010 7.18 WG6 Meeting Minutes- February 9, 2010 – Registrar‘s Interview Notes 7.19 Hart Research Associate‘s Trends and Emerging Practices in General Education 7.20 John Gardner‘s Kean Learning Dimension Feedback 09.23.10 7.21 IR data 05.11.10: Foundations and Distribution Courses 7.22 T2K student surveys 7.23 GE Annual Report 2008 – 09 7.24 Email request for funding for ENG 1030 portfolio evaluation session (Sutton to James) 7.25 MATH 1000 Outcomes, FA00 – 09, 06.02.10 7.26 Middle States Material on ATEAM English 7.27 Email from Bridget White, 07.06.10 7.28 ATEAM Fall 09 Student Feedback Survey Initial Report - 1 7.29 ATEAM Spring 2010 Student Feedback Survey 7.30 list of Approved Distribution Courses 7.31 list of GE approved PE courses for Distribution 7.32 Explanation of WG6.12 selection of random Distribution courses for data analysis 7.33 IR data 03.08.10 and 03.09.10: Foundations and Distribution courses 7.34 Faculty Senate GE Committee Standing Charge 7.35 Minutes from GE Committee mtgs., SP05 – SP10 7.36 Academic Affairs Action Plan 2010 - 2014

Chapter 8 8.1 Institutional Profiles, 2004-2005, 2005, 2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 8.2 General Education Annual Report 2008-2009 8.3 Honors Program Proposal 8.4 Faculty Senate White Paper Report: Academics at Kean University, Ad Hoc Committee Comprised of Faculty from numerous departments, April 21, 2009 8.5 Kean OCC Memorandum of Agreement 8.6 RVCC Biotechnology Articulation Document 8.7 Kean Ocean Faculty Guide 8.8 RVCC 8.9 Muhlenberg School of Nursing 8.10 Middlesex County College 8.11 Ocean County College 8.12 Wenzhou University 8.13 Wenzhou University 8.14 Zhajiang University 8.15 Xiangtan University 8.16 Study Abroad Enrollment 2008-2010 8.17 List of Enrollments for Particular Destinations 8.18 ―Distance Learning at Kean University‖ Report

115

Chapter 9 9.1 University Assessment Committee Report May 30, 2002 9.2 2003 GE Re- Organization 9.3 Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Assessment 9.4 School of Nursing Accreditation Self Study 2009 9.5 Chemistry 5-Yr Re Accreditation Self Study 2009 9.6 National Council for Accreditation of Teachers Education NCATE Report 9.7 Institutional Profile 2008-2009 9.8 Fall 2009 Student and Faculty Profile 9.9 Transfer and Readmit Major List 9.10 General Education Report 2008-2009 9.11 College/Department Self-Study Data Collection Forms 9.12 College/Department Self-Study Annual Reports 9.13 College/Department Self-Study 5 Year Program Review Report 9.14 Assessment Reports 9.15 Accreditation Reports 9.16 http://www.kean.edu/~ncate/Survey.htm 9.17 Http://131.125.2.119:8080/Survey.aspx?surveyid=2679 9.18 Facebook.com- Kean University College of Education 9.19 Specialized Professional Association (SPA) Reports. (All Programs)

116

Appendix A Strengths, Weaknesses, and Recommendations

Chapter 2- Standard 1 Strengths 1. Kean charts its directions and goals through the strategic planning process. 2. Kean remains consistent and steadfast in its mission. 3. Kean‘s mission impacts performance and initiatives, guiding development of programs and activities to benefit students and the community. Challenges 1. The University has not operationalized the mission statement and the Strategic Plan. 2. Not all units and departments have clear unit mission/goals derived from and in support of the Mission. 3. Budgeting is not explicitly linked to the University‘s mission and goals. 4. Limited promotion has curbed campus awareness of the Mission Statement and Strategic Plan. Recommendations 1. Specify outcomes and measurements when constructing and articulating planning goals/objectives. 2. Ensure that every unit/department develop mission/goals in conjunction with those of the University. 3. Explicitly link budgeting processes with mission and university priorities. 4. Broadly promote the University‘s Mission Statement and Strategic Plan. Chapter 2- Standard 7 Strengths 1. The newly-created Office of Assessment and Accreditation and the position of Director of Assessment signify administrative commitment to ―systematic‖ assessment. 2. The Senate Assessment Committee demonstrates faculty commitment to assessment. 3. The President and other senior administrators regularly use data reports for decision-making. 4. A wealth of institutional data is available from the Office of Institutional Research. 5. Assessment is active in a number of academic and non-academic units. Challenges 1. Assessment activities are hindered by limited dissemination of information. 2. Frequent turnover among chief academic officers compromises the sustainability of policies and practices. 3. Continued allocation of sufficient resources to support assessment at all levels. 4. The lack of explicitly identified measurements for mission and goals, lack of training, lack of methodology, and lack of instruments hinders campus-wide assessment efforts. Recommendations 1. Build strong leadership in assessment through collaboration among faculty, staff, and administration. 2. Document work responsibilities and procedures for every position to assure continuation of policies and practices during transition periods. 3. Commit sufficient resources to assessment at all levels, including assigning an assessment liaison for every unit and providing campus-wide assessment training. 4. Support implementation of the newly-hired Director of Assessment‘s action plan to get comprehensive university-wide assessment underway. 5. Establish clear guidelines, realistic timetables, and explicit responsibilities for carrying out assessment institution-wide.

A 1

Chapter 3- Standard 2 Planning Processes and Structures Strengths 1. University Planning Council reflects a cross-section of the campus community. 2. The Strategic Plan affirms the University‘s mission for 2007-2012. Challenges 1. The existing Facilities Master Plan is not current. 2. University-wide planning lacks vibrant participation. 3. There is no annual report on Strategic Plan progress. 4. There was no University-wide assessment plan at the time of the self study. 5. Communication to the university community regarding planning is not timely. Recommendations 1. Develop a current Facilities Master Plan. 2. Create processes to engage various constituencies in University-wide planning. 3. Increase the role of academic units in the creation and implementation of strategic plans. 4. Continue development of the university-wide assessment plan as scheduled.

Resource Allocation Strengths 1. Expenditures are consistent with the University‘s mission. 2. The allocation of resources is presented clearly in the annual budget. 3. Expenditures support special programs and student scholarships. 4. A conservative approach to budgeting has allowed Kean to thrive in these economic times. Challenges 1. Limited flexibility in utilization of funds. 2. The allocation of resources takes place at the executive level. 3. Physical plant and academic needs each place demands on the budgetary decisions. 4. Allocation of resources is not linked to formal planning/assessment processes. 5. The need to increase the number of full-time faculty. Recommendations 1. Create a more transparent process for allocation of resources. 2. Implement the Faculty Replenishment Plan. 3. More closely align budget and planning.

Institutional Renewal Strengths 1. Guided by well-researched environmental scans. 2. Creation of new academic programs. 3. Deletion of underperforming academic programs. 4. Increased technological infrastructure and support. 5. Improvements in all areas of university life: physical plant, programmatic offerings, fundraising. Challenges 1. Campus input is not always solicited in the prioritization of campus improvements. 2. Fixed budgetary commitments (salaries, debt service) restrict fund allocation. Recommendations 1. Solicit community-wide input regarding institutional renewal. 2. Continue to seek other revenue sources to support institutional improvements.

A 2

Chapter 3-Standard 3 Strengths 1. Kean University maintains a stable financial outlook and solid bond rating. 2. Kean enjoys a variety of innovative applications systems including ―Google Apps‖ suites, a mobile phone application, and a Campus Safety Alert System in a fully wireless environment. 3. Physical expansion has attracted students to campus. 4. The Library now supports scholarly activity and continues with ongoing growth. Challenges 1. State funding is likely to continue to decrease. 2. Lack of technology strategic plan. 3. Annual payments on long-term debt exceed $20 million for the foreseeable future. Recommendations Create a centralized technology strategic plan. Chapter 4- Standard 4 Strengths 1. A passion for the University's mission and students. 2. Experienced employees remain committed to Kean‘s Mission. 3. Governance structure is delineated from the Board of Trustees to senior leadership to Faculty Senate. 4. The role and leadership of Student Organization(s). Challenges 1. The lack of cohesion across the major governing bodies. 2. Dissemination of information from the administration to faculty and staff. 3. Communication between the KFT and the administration is not productive. 4. Definition of the faculty role in shared governance activities such as academic program maintenance and expansion/reduction, reorganization, etc. Recommendations 1. Review and update current by-laws and covenants of governing bodies in order to better foster communication and interaction. 2. Improve organizational communication. 3. Establish a mechanism for increasing productivity between the administration and the KFT. 4. More effectively engage the Faculty Senate in governance processes. Chapter 4- Standard 5 Strengths 1. Executive staff hold experience in a wide range of capacities in higher education. 2. Executive staff demonstrate a passion for and dedication to the institution. 3. Most executive staff are active scholars and teachers. Challenges 1. Many units function without formal systems for disseminating policy, procedures and information. 2. Turnover rates in executive staff. 3. Diversity of executive staff. Recommendations 1. Establish effective central communications systems across all units to disseminate information, such as handbooks and procedure manuals, to sustain policy and procedures. 2. Develop methodology for leadership transition. 3. Increase diversity within the executive ranks.

A 3

Chapter 4- Standard 6 Strengths 1. Increased fiscal support for faculty research in view of the shift to the teacher-scholar model. 2. Services TTFN provides for new tenure track faculty. 3. Degree audit ensures compliance with academic standards established for the awarding of degrees within the entire Kean Community. 4. Solid understanding of application procedures for both the tenure and promotion processes. Challenges 1. Current law creates a difference in degree requirements for transfers with an associate‘s degree from a NJ Community College, those who transfer from other institutions, and native students. 2. CAS is difficult to locate within the Kean website, making valuable information less accessible. 3. Formal written criteria for tenure or promotion are not easily accessible. 4. The deregistration policy is often detrimental to students. 5. The website does not contain up-to-date information in many areas. 6. The Office of Student Financial Services does not recognize it role in increasing graduation rates. Recommendations 1. Revise transfer credit analysis so that transfer and native students are treated equitably. 2. Place CAS prominently on the University‘s webpage. 3. Make specific, written guidelines for tenure and promotion easily accessible. 4. Revise the deregistration policy. 5. Develop policies and practices to support maintenance of the newly launched website. 6. Train personnel in the offices of Financial Aid and Student Accounting to emphasize student- friendly customer service. Chapter 5- Standard 8 Student Recruitment Strengths. 1. Recruitment outreach has broadened geographically, aligning with the University‘s mission and meeting goals to cultivate new service areas. 2. Enhanced relationships with high schools exist as a result of direct efforts. Challenge Recruitment in the Graduate College is limited. Recommendation Expand programmatic, departmental, and faculty involvement in GR and UG recruitment.

Student Admissions Strengths 1. Admissions data affirm the University‘s mission. 2. Enrollments have increased. 3. Student academic profiles remain stable. 4. The collaborative inter-office admissions model promotes consistent, effective procedures. Challenges 1. Programmatic communication with new students needs improvement. 2. Admission documents often are misplaced between offices. 3. Admission activities are divided among four offices on campus. Recommendation 1. Remedy information loss (e.g., application fee, transcripts) during the admissions process. 2. Consolidate the different Admissions Offices on campus to reduce confusion and redundancy and to improve effectiveness.

A 4

Student Retention Strengths 1. Retention and graduation rates are within range of national figures. 2. Faculty advisement training and office hours have enhanced major advisement. 3. Center for Academic Success offers extensive support services. Challenge Student graduation is not always timely. Recommendation 1. Solicit/analyze data to isolate the factors contributing to the low retention and graduation rates. 2. Design and implement strategies to improve retention and graduation rates. 3. Assess and analyze all support services for students.

The Role of Financial Aid in Student Admissions and Retention Strengths 1. The Office reaches out to prospective students and their parents. 2. The Office now utilizes technology to schedule financial aid appointments. 3. The Office of Financial Aid website is well developed and widely used. Challenges 1. Financial Aid facilities lack full confidentiality for students. 2. Customer service does not support a student-centered environment. Recommendations Expand/provide professional development for all Financial Aid personnel. Chapter 5- Standard 9 Strengths 1. Documentation exists for the vast array of support services, organizations, and programs at Kean. 2. Support services benefit from Kean‘s state-of-art technological infrastructure and software. 3. Cutting-edge healthcare initiatives are in place and well documented. Challenge A centralized location and description of the array of services available do not exist. Recommendations Coordinate and centralize information dissemination of all aspects of student support services, programs, and support. Chapter 6- Standard 10 Faculty Population and Demographics Strengths 1. Faculty assume overload and advisement responsibilities to help the University meet the needs of an expanding student population. 2. Faculty expend extraordinary efforts to publish and remain active professionals in their respective fields. Challenges 1. The burdens placed on faculty that impede their professional development have become unsustainable even though increased teaching loads have been met by substantially increasing the adjunct/faculty ratio during the past five years. 2. Professional rewards for full-time faculty in terms of promotion and sabbatical leaves are very few; sabbaticals are far below state-authorized levels. Recommendations 1. Implement the Faculty Replenishment Plan. 2. Develop a plan to increase the retention of associate professors. 3. Negotiate a plan that provides an upwardly mobile career pathway for full-time faculty. A 5

Adjunct Faculty Strengths 1. The University provides an informal orientation session for adjunct faculty each semester. 2. The Center for Professional Development offers technology instruction frequently each semester. 3. The University offers internal programs to support/recognize adjunct faculty research and scholarship. 4. Resources are available to help adjunct faculty secure external funding for research and scholarship. Challenges 1. There is a high turnover rate in the adjunct faculty unit. 2. Adjunct faculty participation in formal professional development/training program is limited due to contractual issues. Recommendations 1. Develop a plan to increase adjunct faculty retention. 2. Encourage adjunct participation in professional development.

Recruiting and Retaining Strengths Kean maintains a demographically-diverse representation of faculty and students despite the decrease in full-time faculty. Challenges 1. The proportion of minority faculty in each category (African American, Hispanic, and Asian) has not kept abreast with the proportion of minority students at the University. 2. Written criteria for faculty retention/tenure have not been clearly established. Recommendations Articulate a strategy to recruit minority faculty in proportion to the student population.

Faculty Support Strengths 1. The University provides internal funding programs to support faculty research and creative works. 2. The amount of internal funding support has increased substantially over the past five years. 3. ORSP has greatly increased communication about research and creative works and provides extensive assistance in helping faculty acquire external funds. Challenges 1. Teaching loads and few sabbatical leaves restrict faculty access to professional development. 2. Support for faculty administration of grants. Recommendations 1. Improve grant administration support. 2. Review policy on sabbatical leaves and travel support with regard to teacher-scholar model.

Responsibility for Curricula and Professional Development Strengths Faculty demonstrate a strong commitment to their active role in curriculum development. Challenges 1. At times, curriculum development is administratively imposed without faculty involvement and without regard for University Curriculum Procedures. 2. While there is no intentional detrimental effect, the consequences of the academic restructuring on students and on the academic standards of the disciplines have not been thought out.

A 6

Recommendations 1. UCC review of accreditation requirements and other curricular implications of the academic reorganization plan. 2. Follow curriculum procedures established by the Senate. 3. Ensure that the revised curriculum procedures preserve the academic integrity of each discipline and the ability of students to transfer courses in and out of the University and do not cause confusion for students presenting their credentials for graduate studies in their disciplines.

Advisement Strengths 1. Faculty have direct oversight of the advisement of each of their majors. 2. KeanWise has been improved to assist with student advisement. Challenges 1. There is no University-wide screening for prerequisites on KeanWise. 2. There is no accountability of who clears the hold on each student registration. 3. There is no consistency as to the priorities for advising students. Recommendations 1. Improve the advisement process to include review of screening for prerequisites; equitable distribution of advisees; consistent advisement of students with regard to all aspects of their registration, retention, and graduation. 2. Include pre-requisites in the Datatel System.

Technology Strengths There has been a significant increase in the number of technology-mediated classrooms over the past 5 years. Challenges 1. Communication about technology available and training is weak and not coordinated for either full-time or adjunct faculty. 2. Many faculty are working with outdated and poorly functioning computers. 3. Replacement of computers and upgrades of software is inconsistent. 4. Many faculty cannot use technology-mediated classrooms because laptops (their own or department loaners) are not available. 5. Deteriorating performance of the network hinders faculty teaching effectiveness. Recommendations 1. Design and publish a Strategic Technology Plan to ensure that the University keeps current with advances in technology, including a replacement plan for faculty computers and software. 2. More effectively coordinate and plan training events. 3. Encourage use of technology. 4. Review and improve the procedures for approving an online version of an approved course. 5. Improve network and wireless systems. Chapter 7- Standard 11 Undergraduate Offerings Strengths 1. Department Chairs/Executive Directors‘ review of syllabi. 2. Guide sheets are readily available for each of the majors through a variety of venues. Course syllabi contain learning outcomes, course goals, and objectives. 3. University Curriculum Procedures are effective in the management of the curriculum. Challenges 1. Guide sheets do not provide sufficient written explanation for meeting graduation requirements. A 7

2. Advisement practices do not meet the level of guidance students expect about either degree completion or career development. 3. Programs that are eliminated are not systematically removed from bulletin and/or course catalogues. 4. The Program Review process is lacking implementation and enforcement. Recommendations 1. Develop a sequencing sheet entitled ―a pathway to graduation‖ to support student retention and graduation in the major. 2. Complete an assessment of the academic advising process and its impact on student success and academic progress. 3. Implement regular training to update faculty on new course requirements. 4. Revise and enforce the Program Review process. The common data sets that the Office of Accreditation and Assessment will distribute annually to academic units as well as the year-end reporting procedures that are now in place will support this review process.

Graduate Educational Offerings

Strengths 1. The Graduate College has centralized the admissions process and assessment requirements. 2. A current focus of the Graduate College is program development, such as combined Bachelor/Master degree programs and collaborations with external institutions such as Drexel College of Medicine and the University of Medicine and Dentistry. 3. The Nathan Weiss Graduate College‘s East Campus was renovated and opened in 2008 to afford identity and a home for Kean‘s graduate students. 4. The use of technology has enhanced teaching methods in specific programs, such as Speech, Language and Pathology and Visual and Performing Arts. Challenges 1. Strategies for marketing graduate education are limited and underperforming. 2. The distinction between programs and faculty at the graduate and undergraduate is not clear. Recommendations 1. Strengthen marketing strategies, to include updating of the website, for providing information about available programs. 2. Continue enhancing the identity of the Nathan Weiss Graduate College so that graduate programs are distinct from undergraduate programs in content and faculty. 3. Implement and strictly enforce the program review process for the same reasons stated for undergraduate programs. 4. Through the Office of Accreditation and Assessment, implement regular and consistent assessment mechanisms for the purpose of collecting and analyzing data to determine program effectiveness at the graduate level and programmatic needs. 5. Implement the electronic documentation system for Graduate Admissions.

Academic Offerings at Kean Ocean Strengths 1. Kean Ocean benefits NJ residents outside Kean‘s immediate service area. 2. Kean Ocean students receive instruction and curriculum comparable to that delivered to Kean Union students since the courses are equivalent to those on the Union Campus. 3. A steady increase in programs demonstrates the University‘s commitment to Kean Ocean. 4. Kean Union faculty are supportive of the Kean Ocean program. Faculty are engaged and involved in providing information about their programs to Kean Ocean students. Challenges 1. Resident faculty are needed at Kean Ocean to keep up with increased enrollments. A 8

2. Student governance is not progressing as it should at Kean Ocean—students are not getting involved in activities and they do not receive services commensurate with the fees they pay. 3. The limited number of personnel, including faculty, at Kean Ocean does not provide for efficient, advisement and other activities typical of the Kean Union experience. Recommendations 1. Implement plans outlined in the Faculty Replenishment Report for increasing Kean Ocean faculty. 2. Develop further the Kean Ocean dedicated administrative office to address students‘ needs on various levels. Chapter 7- Standard 12 Strengths 1. Transition to Kean is a first-year experience course that successfully utilizes results from consistently administered surveys to guide programmatic changes. 2. The English Composition Coordinator and the Department of English have overseen the development of assessment methods for improving ENG 1030 and have responded promptly to the Reorganization. 3. Implementation of the A-TEAM in Mathematics and English has yielded positive results. 4. An even division of responsibility for FT faculty teaching Distribution courses is seen among three out of five colleges: HSS, NAHS, and CVPA. 5. The completion passing rate of students taught by adjunct faculty is similar to, if not higher than, the rate for students taught by FT faculty. 6. The School of General Studies is in place with a new Director and is undertaking the development of a strategic plan. Challenges 1. The withdrawal rates, passing rates and inconsistent minimum grade policy should be examined across all GE courses. 2. The inability of CHSS faculty to teach on overload limits resident faculty staffing in COMM 1402, a Foundation course taken by every FTFT student. 3. The new distribution course, HIST 1062, was launched fall 2010, but without a pre-determined course-embedded assessment system. 4. Some responsibilities, as well as some recommendations, of the Faculty Senate GE Committee have been neglected. The formation of the SGS and GE Advisory Committee further cloud the charge of this body. 5. Recent changes in Foundation mathematics courses requirements and other recent GE Program changes have resulted in a population of Kean students participating in several iterations of the GE Program. 6. Past efforts to collect useful data for assessment purposes have been inconsistent and incomplete. 7. Participation of FT Faculty in GE course delivery. Recommendations 1. Increase the level of FT faculty that deliver GE courses, particularly GE 202X. 2. Ensure consistent grading policies, course goals, and modes of assessment. 3. Use the GE Program as a central hub for assessment of GE learning outcomes from T2K through Capstone. 4. Develop job descriptions for all GE Distribution course coordinators. 5. Evaluate the relevance of the required mathematics sequences, including placement in developmental math, for each major. 6. Revisit the charge to the Faculty Senate GE Committee relative to the findings of this self study. 7. Design mandatory professional development for all GE instructors, including Capstone and distribution course instructors, to implement recommendations from the GE Advisory Committee.

A 9

8. Eliminate the ―D‖ as a passing grade and adopt ―C‖ as the minimum acceptable grade in GE courses. 9. Provide resources to increase the frequency and quality of retreats, workshops, meetings, professional development, and technology for GE instructors, Advisory Committee members, and the Faculty Senate GE Committee. Chapter 8- Standard 13 Strengths 1. Admissions information effectively communicates the range of special programs available to meet students‘ needs and interests. 2. Kean Ocean‘s success demonstrates the University‘s ability to create new educational opportunities to meet the needs of New Jersey residents from economic and geographic communities traditionally underserved by higher education. 3. Kean University‘s increasing global reach supports the goal of providing world-class education. Challenges 1. Pass rates in basic skills courses negatively impact retention and graduation rates. 2. With the exception of Kean Ocean, information about additional locations is scattered and located through individual departments and colleges only. 3. Honors and enrichment programs are not adequate to meet the University‘s world-class goals. 4. Collateral programs are under utilized and their value is little understood by the student population. 5. Needs of the rapidly growing Kean Ocean additional location warrant attention. 6. The growing number of distance learning courses points to the need for oversight, faculty training, and technological support. Recommendations 1. Provide appropriate support and oversight for basic skills courses. 2. Make information about additional locations, distance education, and online course offerings more easily accessible through the website and publications. 3. Finalize, seek approval of, and implement the proposed University Honors Program. 4. Assess existing collaterals for viability and potential as minors or professional certificate programs. 5. Provide leadership (e.g. an E-Learning Director) to oversee the growing number of online courses, ensure that these conform with the academic standards of the University, establish processes for assessing courses and student learning outcomes, coordinate faculty training and support development of new online courses and programs. 6. Reconsider University-wide use of the terms ―distance learning,‖ ―off campus‖ learning, and ―online learning‖ to provide a coherent use of nomenclature that is clear to the public. 7. Review the goals and objectives of the various memoranda of agreement for international programs to organize further the new Center for International Studies. Chapter 9- Standard 14 Strengths 1. The University has dedicated itself to implementing systemic assessment, as revealed through the Strategic Plan (Appendix B), the establishment of an Office of Accreditation and Assessment, and the employment of a Director of Assessment. 2. Assessment activities are systematic and quantifiable within several academic programs. 3. Assessment outcomes are utilized for program development and improvement, although there is variability across campus. 4. Best practices can be found within accredited and non-accredited programs. 5. Disciplines seeking accreditation or re-accreditation have systematic and planned assessment activities in place. A 10

Challenges 1. The five-year program review cycle for systematic program assessment is not currently active. 2. College-wide assessment is not in place. 3. Lack of clearly-stated, measurable, and compatible student learning outcomes for all academic units at every level of the university. 4. Lack of faculty training in assessment. 5. Ongoing change and interruptions in GE assessment. 6. Lack of discourse on campus in and across departments about student learning, the examination of student work products, and areas of strength and weaknesses in given programs for the purpose of program improvement. 7. Limited assessment of alumni outcomes. Recommendations 1. Resume the program review cycle. 2. Ensure coordination of assessment at the college level. 3. Place teaching and learning as well as the assessment of learning at the center of Kean programming, training, and workshops. 4. Continue to assess the first year at Kean for freshmen and transfers and ensure dissemination of information and follow up for campus-wide program improvement. 5. Participate in standardized assessment of courses. 6. Establish rubrics to assess student performance in capstones. 7. Establish rubrics to assess student performance in master‘s theses and doctoral dissertations. 8. Conduct ongoing research on student engagement. 9. Continue to support and extend current assessment activities, especially in GE. 10. Provide ongoing support for the Office of Accreditation and Assessment and efforts to centralize assessment, maintaining transparency and communicate outcomes and changes. 11. Continue the compilation and distribution of common data sets for academic programs and the General Education Program for academic program review and external accreditation reports. 12. Utilize alumni outcomes in assessment program effectiveness.

A 11

Appendices B though V

For appendices B through V please see the following link:

http://www.kean.edu/~acadaff/middlestates.shtm

A 12